Re: [boost] Review Schedule and Review Manager for PODs Flat Reflection (ex magic_get)

Subject: Re: [boost] Review Schedule and Review Manager for PODs Flat Reflection (ex magic_get)
From: Barrett Adair (barrettellisadair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-07-31 14:54:56

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Ronald Garcia <rxg_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hello Antony,
>
> I have added PFR to the review schedule.
>
> Best,
> Ron
>
> > On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:12 PM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > PODs Flat Reflection (or PFR) is a C++14 library that represents POD
> > structures as tuples and provides tuple-like methods for PODs. Library
has
> > a set of predefined operators for PODs and useful functions for everyday
> > use. Works with user-defined types without any macro or boilerplate
code.
> >
> > Library: https://github.com/apolukhin/magic_get
> > Docs: http://apolukhin.github.io/magic_get/
> > Boost Library Incubator:
> >
http://blincubator.com/bi_library/pfr-pod-flat-reflection/?gform_post_id=1606
> >
> > Could the PODs Flat Reflection library be put on review schedule?
> >
> > Anyone wishing to become a Review Manager for the library?
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Antony Polukhin
> >
>

I'm relatively new to the Boost community, but I would be happy to be a
review manager for PFR, especially if it would otherwise stagnate on the
review queue.

I think PFR is very intersting, and worthy of a Boost review. I spent 2 or
3 hours studying the implementation a couple of months ago, and I have
recommended several people to check it out. I think it has value as an
educational exercise in addition to its real-world use cases. There isn't a
lot of code, so expect the review to be swift and straightforward.

For what it's worth, I predict that the main point of contention during the
review will be the fact that it ultimately relies on undefined behavior to
work. Before scheduling the review, I would prefer for the documentation to
include an explanation of where the magic (and the UB) actually occurs in
the code.

I closely followed the review of the Fit library, but I did not
participate. I've also read some of the archives from the Boost.Hana
review, and was very marginally involved with Hana's development after its
acceptance. I use Boost at work, I follow the mailing list, I went to
C++Now this year, and I'm working on my own library submission. Such is the
extent of my involvement with Boost, so I am admittedly not an ideal
candidate for a review manager.

Thanks,
Barrett