Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [review] Fast track formal review of Forward library begins today

From: Stjepan Rajko (stipe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-05 11:37:08

On Dec 3, 2007 2:57 AM, John Torjo <john.groups_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>      * What is your evaluation of the design?

Clear enough.  I would find the gref metafunction useful factored out
in a separate include file (with a more descriptive name than gref
like... forwardable<T>::type?
lvalue_reference_to_which_is_bindable<T>::type :) ?)

>      * What is your evaluation of the implementation?

I agree with Dave on the EBO suggestion (and thanks for the
compressed_pair lesson)

>      * What is your evaluation of the documentation?

Sufficient.

>      * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?

Very useful.  Although, I seem to run into cases where I want to have
a forwarding function (not function object), or a forwarding operator.
 But maybe I'm wrong in preferring an actual function...

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

GCC 4.0.1/darwin.  I expanded the example from the docs a bit to where
the forwarded function was polymorphic with varying return type.  No
problems.

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

Read the docs, studied the implementation until I mostly understood
what it was doing, contemplated it a bit, and gave it a quick try.

>      * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
>

I have a few bumps on my head, courtesy of the forwarding problem.

> And finally, every review should answer this question:
>
>      * 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.
>

Yes - thanks for another great contribution.

Stjepan