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

From: Klemens Morgenstern (klemensdavidmorgenstern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-05-07 11:52:49

>
> 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:
>
>
I recommend to *ACCEPT* the library into boost.

Even though I don't have an application, this seems like a nice tool to
have. It would be great if the language supported it, but since it doesn't
a library implementation is the next best thing.
I consider boost a good place for solid implementation for an advanced and
niche feature.

> * What is your evaluation of the design?
>

I think it's a bit too customizable; it is suffering from policy-based
design. That is, I would prefer something more opinionated, because that's
what a language feature would be as well.
Other than that it looks good, the basic use-case is pretty straight
forward.

* What is your evaluation of the implementation?
>
It looks right. I.e. I don't know what to do differently.

> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
>
It is clear & detailed enough.

> * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
>
I think it's useful for certain problems, although I don't have any need at
the moment. It is really more of a tool that will come in handy at an
unexpected time.

> * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any
> problems?
>

Yes, very simple. No problems.

> * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> reading? In-depth study?
>

I read the docs & code and tried out a simple example. I think about 4h
time invested.

> * Are you knowledgeable about the problems tackled by the library?
>

Not when it comes to open-methods, but I have of course used plenty of
virtual functions in the past.