Re: [boost] [poly_collection] Small review

Subject: Re: [boost] [poly_collection] Small review
From: Joaquin M López Muñoz (joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-09 11:39:19

El 09/05/2017 a las 12:20, Pete Bartlett via Boost escribió:
>
>> Dear Ion, Joaquin and boost mailing list,
>>   
>> I hope this brief review is of some value to you. I don’t expect to be a recognised name on the mailing list but have contributed to it intermittently over the years. I have also used the author’s MultiIndex library in production for about a decade.
>>   
>> I would recommend that PolyCollection be accepted into Boost.

Thank you for your interest!

>> [...]
>>   
>> It may be worth remarking in the docs (sorry if I missed it) what facilities are used for the type registries that are presumably behind the scenes. From the reference section I think RTTI is required. Is this a hard limit or could Boost.TypeIndex be used?

typeid is used extensively throughout the library, both the static 
(typeid(T)) and the dynamic
version (typeid(x)) --the latter only in base_collection and in one spot in
boost/poly_collection/detail/segment.hpp. std::type_index is part of the 
public interface.
Boost.TypeIndex could be in principle optionally used for RTTI-less 
scenarios, but I don't really
know whether this is a common enough / requested scenario.

>>   NB the reference section has a note “REVIEW THIS DESIGN DECISION” in it.

Yes, the behavior of max_size() and capacity() is something I'm far from 
satisfied with and plan
to fix before inclusion into Boost (if accepted). Please follow this 
thread for further info:

https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2016/11/231681.php

Joaquín M López Muñoz