Re: [boost] [review] Review of PolyCollection starts today (May 3rd)

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of PolyCollection starts today (May 3rd)
From: Joaquin M López Muñoz (joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-15 10:12:30

El 14/05/2017 a las 22:33, Edward Diener via Boost escribió:
> On 5/2/2017 7:46 PM, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> The formal review of Joaquín M. López Muñoz's PolyCollection library 
>> starts today.
>> [...]
>
> This is my review of PolyCollection,

Thank you for your contribution!

> [...]
>
>> - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
>
> I have mentioned previously that I think the documentation should be 
> more specific about the types being used for the 
> boost::function_collection. While an example is good, as in the case 
> of the tutorial, and while a reference is good, as in the case of the 
> documentation for the insert member function, I found the former to be 
> too singular and special an example while I found the latter to be 
> highly technical and therefore hard to understand in general terms. A 
> better addition is simply to document in an explanation of ideas and 
> concepts exactly what types the boost::function_collection entails. I 
> assume it is any type which can be passed to std::function, but I do 
> not know if it can be a std::function object itself. Saying it is 
> "Function wrapping in the spirit of std::function" does not explain it 
> adequately to me. Also since std::function ( or boost::function if you 
> will ) represents any callable it would be nice to understand why the 
> programmer would want to use boost::function_collection versus a 
> collection of std::function objects.

Points taken, as we have already discussed them in the past days. I'll 
try to improve docs
so as to make these aspects clearer.

(When you insert a std::function<Signature> object x, into a 
function_collection<Signature>,
it is x that gets copied/stored rather than its underlying callable 
entity. This is so because
std::function lacks functionalty to recover the wrapped callable entity 
without statically
knowing its type, observe std::function::target does not type erase:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/function/target . 
Incidentally, this
is the main reason why function_collection<Signature>::value type is *not*
a std::function, but an internall lookalike with the required extra 
functionality.)

> [...]
>
>>
>> And most importantly:
>>
>> - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
>
> I think the library should be accepted based on the fact that it 
> offers an alternative to normal collections which can prove valuable 
> to end-users, and that it is a polished library with few surprises. 
> With that said I think the library should document better the 
> advantages and practical situations that make polycollection superior 
> to normal C++ collections, else an end-user will be puzzled about for 
> what situations it will be useful.

Thank you,

Joaquín M López Muñoz