Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.DLL] Formal Review request
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-10-02 08:45:27
2014-10-02 16:18 GMT+04:00 Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]>:
> On 02/10/14 13:18, Antony Polukhin wrote:
>> So unless someone thinks the library isn't ready or would get rejected
>> right away in its current state for reason X, I am requesting a formal
>> review for Boost.DLL.
>> Library location: https://github.com/apolukhin/Boost.DLL
>> Library Docs: http://apolukhin.github.io/Boost.DLL/index.html
> Just a couple of pre-review comments:
> - I did not see any mention of previous work. I remember there used to be
> Boost.Plugin and Boost.Extension libraries written to address that same
Boost.Plugin is the previous name of the library (this can be seen in
Revision History section). Some very intial version of shared_library class
was taken from Boost.Application library (there's a note in README.md, thou
it must be duplicated in Revision History section).
I've discovered Boost.Extension project somewhere in the middle of
Boost.DLL development, but no ideas were taken from it.
- I did not find any rationale for the alias mechanism. Surely you can work
> with C++ symbols without needing to alias them with a C name?
Yes, you can. Though C++ name will be mangled and some `void
boost::foo(std::sting)` will change to something like `N5boostN3foosE`.
Importing function by `N5boostN3foosE` name does not looks user friendly,
especially assuming the fact that different compilers have different
The alias name - is a not mangled name for C++ symbol.
-- Best regards, Antony Polukhin
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk