Re: [OpenMethod] review starts on 28th of April

From: Ruben Perez (rubenperez038_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-04-29 10:13:20

Hi,

First, thanks Jean Luis and Dmitry for the submission and managing the
review. I've got a couple of questions for the author regarding the
long-term aim of the library:

* Is your long-term goal to present open methods for standardization,
using this library as a way to gain field experience? Or is the
library aimed at the end user as-is, with no long-term standardization
intent?
* If standardization is your goal, have you checked on any committee
member about how possible is moving this forward?

Thanks,
Ruben.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 at 15:15, Дмитрий Архипов via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Dear Boost community. The peer review of the proposed Boost.OpenMethod will
> start on 28th of April and continue until May 7th. OpenMethods implements open
> methods in C++. Those are "virtual functions" defined outside of classes. They
> allow avoiding god classes, and visitors and provide a solution to the
> Expression Problem, and the banana-gorilla-jungle problem. They also support
> multiple dispatch. This library implements most of Stroustrup's multimethods
> proposal, with some new features, like customization points and
> inter-operability with smart pointers. And despite all that open-method calls
> are fast - on par with native virtual functions.
>
> You can find the source code of the library at
> https://github.com/jll63/Boost.OpenMethod/tree/master and read the
> documentation at https://jll63.github.io/Boost.OpenMethod/. The library is
> header-only and thus it is fairly easy to try it out. In addition, Christian
> Mazakas (of the C++ Alliance) has added the candidate library to his vcpkg
> repository (https://github.com/cmazakas/vcpkg-registry-test). The library is
> also available in Compiler Explorer under the name YOMM2.
>
> As the library is not domain-specific, everyone is very welcome to contribute a
> review either by sending it to the Boost mailing list, or me personally. In
> your review please state whether you recommend to reject or accept the library
> into Boost, and whether you suggest any conditions for acceptance. Other
> questions you might want to answer in your review are:
>
> * What is your evaluation of the design?
> * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
> * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems?
> * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> reading? In-depth study?
> * Are you knowledgeable about the problems tackled by the library?
>
> Thanks in advance for your time and effort!
>
> Dmitry Arkhipov, Staff Engineer at The C++ Alliance.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost