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

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [typeindex v3.0] Peer review begins Mon 21st ends Wed 30th
From: Karsten Ahnert (karsten.ahnert_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-30 09:22:28

Hi,

Here is my review of the Type Index library. I have not studied version
2.1, so everything is entirely based on v3.0

> 1. What is your evaluation of the design?

Seems reasonable to me. It is an enhancement of std::type_info with
additional functionality and methods. I think the most useful function
is pretty_name(). There have been some discussion about the namespace, I
also do not like boost::typeind. boost::typeindex would be fine for me.

I have one suggestion: Can e method for splitting the name into a part
for the namesapce and a part for the type name be provided? Or even a
range of (nested) namespace names. I could imagine something like

type_id< A::B::Foo >.type_name() prints "Foo" and
type_id< A::B::Foo >.namespace_name() returns a range with ["A","B"]

> 2. What is your evaluation of the implementation?

I searched the code to find the place where the name in pretty_name is
generated, and I found __cxa_demanlge :). No seriously, I have not
looked very detailed into the implementation.

> 3. What is your evaluation of the documentation?

Documentation is fine. Maybe an example with the output of pretty_name()
could be put into the Getting started section, to see immediately the
advantage of this library. And an example with namespaces would be
great, showing that namespaces are also correctly displayed.

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

For me it is really useful. I have two use cases where I would
immediately use this library, one is showing the name of expections and
the other is giving better error messages in a type erased library.

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

Yes, I played around with it for 1-2 hour. Works out of the box, with
gcc-4.7 and gcc-4.8. There where no problems, everything works smoothly.

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

1-2 hour with playing with examples and reading the docs.

> 7. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

A bit.

> 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.

Yes, I think it should be accepted.