Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.DLL formal review is ongoing
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-13 14:47:56
I've been unable to spend enough time to complete a review of this library, so I can't recommend or discourage its inclusion in Boost.
I expect to be able to complete a review sometime next week, if the review manager is inclined to wait for it.
In the meantime, I'll note a few things I've observed in my initial study:
1. The docs need serious editing.
2. The motivation section is too terse. It doesn't do a good job of explaining the value of the library.
3. I question exposing functions like this_line_location() and program_location(). I'd rather see special factory functions or enumerators to signal the behavior those pathnames enable.
4. A generic term I use for DLLs, shared objects, etc. is "dynamic library." I suggest that the documentation define that term once, up front, and then use it everywhere else rather than repeating the "DLL, shared object (DSO), etc." phrase. I'd also encourage using that name for the library itself (Boost.DynamicLibrary) and for the shared_object class.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk