Subject: Re: [boost] [poly_collection] Small review
From: Joaquin M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz (joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-09 11:39:19
El 09/05/2017 a las 12:20, Pete Bartlett via Boost escribiÃ³:
>> Dear Ion, Joaquin and boost mailing list,
>> I hope this brief review is of some value to you. I donât expect to be a recognised name on the mailing list but have contributed to it intermittently over the years. I have also used the authorâs 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
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 âREVIEW THIS DESIGN DECISIONâ 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:
JoaquÃn M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk