Boost logo

Boost :

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:
>> Library Docs:
> 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
> problem.

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, 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
mangling scheme.

The alias name - is a not mangled name for C++ symbol.

Best regards,
Antony Polukhin

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at