[Boost-announce] [typeindex v3.0] Peer review begins Mon 21st ends Wed 30th

Subject: [Boost-announce] [typeindex v3.0] Peer review begins Mon 21st ends Wed 30th
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-20 14:14:13

Dear Boost,

A second round of community review begins for proposed 
Boost.TypeIndex on Mon 21st, lasting ten days. I should apologise as 
it's my fault for starting another peer review straight after 
Boost.Align ends, however I was busy as Google Summer of Code admin 
until today, and I will be preparing to talk at C++ Now straight 
after this review ends. I hope that this doesn't affect the 
community's willingness to contribute to the review.

Reminder of the report from the last TypeIndex v2.1 review: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/boost-list/TeiSdkRkUF0

Reminder of the original peer review announcement: 
http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/TypeIndex-Peer-review-period-for-li
brary-acceptance-begins-ending-Thurs-21st-Nov-td4654788.html

Source code: https://github.com/apolukhin/type_index/zipball/master

Github: https://github.com/apolukhin/type_index

Documentation: http://apolukhin.github.com/type_index/index.html

Changes in TypeIndex v3.0 since v2.1 (from my own review of it):

1. Documentation is hugely improved over v2.1, lots of side by side 
examples illustrating the differences and similarities.

2. You can now create your own custom type indices using an 
extensible framework.

3. boost::typeind::type_info now exports raw_name() and pretty_name() 
to maximise MSVC-GCC compatibility, and to solve point 1 but not 
point 2 in the v2.1 report.

4. The undefined behaviour trick used in v2.1 has been replaced with 
a cast via the placeholder type boost::typeind::detail::ctti_data 
which can be viewed in 
https://github.com/apolukhin/type_index/blob/master/include/boost/type
_index/ctti_type_index.hpp. There is an explanation in the comments 
there about this technique's compatibility with the C++ standard.

5. TypeIndex now defines everything in the boost::typeind namespace 
instead of the boost namespace.

So:

1. What is your evaluation of the design?

2. What is your evaluation of the implementation?

3. What is your evaluation of the documentation?

4. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the 
library?

5. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have 
any problems?

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

7. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

And finally, every review should answer this question:

8. Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be 
sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure 
your overall opinion.

Thanks,
Niall

-- 
Currently unemployed and looking for work in Ireland.
Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/