[Boost-users] [boost] [type_erasure] Review ended

Subject: [Boost-users] [boost] [type_erasure] Review ended
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-04 15:32:27

Hello all,

The review of Boost.TypeErasure ended on Aug 3, 2012. Stay tuned for
my decision on the library.

Thank you very much to Steven, everyone that submitted a review, and
everyone that participated in the discussions.

The review manager,
--Lorenzo

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> *** The review of Boost.TypeErasure ends today Aug 3, 2012. If you are
> planning to submit a review, please do so by the end of today. ***
>
> Thank you to all that have participated to the review so far.
>
> The review manager,
> --Lorenzo
>
> On Jul 27, 2012 1:41 PM, "Lorenzo Caminiti" <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> After consulting the review wizards and Steven, I am extending
>> Boost.TypeErasure review of one week, until August 3, 2012.
>>
>> Thank you to all that have submitted a review already and I am looking
>> forward to receiving additional submissions.
>>
>> The review manager,
>> --Lorenzo
>>
>> On Jul 27, 2012 3:22 AM, "Lorenzo Caminiti" <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti
>>> > <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> >> *** The review of Steven Watanabe's proposed Boost.TypeErasure library
>>> >> begins on July 18, 2012 and ends on July 27, 2012. ***
>>> >
>>> > *** Boost.TypeErasure review ends in 5 days. Please submit your reviews
>>> > :D ***
>>>
>>> *** Boost.TypeErasure review ends today July 27, 2012. If you are
>>> planning to submit a review, please do so as soon as possible. ***
>>>
>>> Thank you to everyone who has commented on the library and submitted a
>>> review so far!
>>>
>>> The review manager,
>>> --Lorenzo
>>> P.S. I am considering extending the review until end of day Sunday
>>> July 29, 2012... I will keep you posted.
>>>
>>> > There have been interesting discussions on the library on the ML but I
>>> > have not received any official review yet :( Especially if you are a
>>> > user of Boost Any, Function, and Any Iterator, you definitely want to
>>> > take a look at Type Erasure as it generalizes solutions provided by
>>> > those other libraries.
>>> >
>>> > Thank you.
>>> >
>>> > The review manager.
>>> > --Lorenzo
>>> >
>>> >> THE LIBRARY
>>> >>
>>> >> C++ provides runtime polymorphism through virtual functions. They are
>>> >> a very useful feature, but they do have some limitations.
>>> >> * They are intrusive. In generic programming, we can design an
>>> >> interface which allows third-party types to be adapted to it.
>>> >> * They require dynamic memory management. Of course, most of the
>>> >> problems can be avoided by using an appropriate smart pointer type.
>>> >> Even so, it still acts like a pointer rather than a value.
>>> >> * Virtual functions' ability to apply multiple independent concepts to
>>> >> a single object is limited.
>>> >> The Boost.TypeErasure library solves these problems allowing us to
>>> >> mirror static generic programming at runtime.
>>> >>
>>> >> Library source:
>>> >> http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/type_erasure/
>>> >>
>>> >> Pre-built documentation:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://steven_watanabe.users.sourceforge.net/type_erasure/libs/type_erasure/
>>> >>
>>> >> You can also download archives with pre-built documentation from:
>>> >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/steven-watanabe.u/files/
>>> >>
>>> >> YOUR REVIEW
>>> >>
>>> >> Please submit a review to the mailing-list by replying to this email
>>> >> ("[boost] [type_erasure] Review ..." should be in the subject).
>>> >>
>>> >> Please state clearly whether you think this library should be accepted
>>> >> as a Boost library.
>>> >>
>>> >> Other questions you may want to consider:
>>> >> 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?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks in advance to all who participate in the review discussion --
>>> >> I'm looking forward to it!