Boost community feedback is requested for the formal peer review of the TypeIndex library by Antony Polukhin. Feedback requested includes: 1. Should this library be accepted into Boost? 2. Any conditions which should be attached to acceptance into Boost e.g. fixes, additional testing, changes to documentation. Please be as specific as possible here (bullet points are good!) Peer review ends on Thursday 21st Nov, ten days from today. Based on your feedback, at that point I will decide if I recommend TypeIndex for inclusion in my report to the review wizards. Comments can be posted to boost@lists.boost.org if you expect others to comment on your post, or to me privately if you wish your comment to not be made public. What is Boost.TypeIndex? TypeIndex performs three main functions: 1. It provides a consistent, well defined, portable boost::typeid() implementation with a consistent, well defined, portable boost::type_info class implementation which mirrors std::type_info. Implementation-specific weirdnesses (e.g. std::type_info::raw_name(), the fact the hash_code is often terrible and collides frequently) are abstracted out into a single, portable API. 2. It provides the ability to convert a type into a uniquely identifiable, container indexable, boost::type_info instance (e.g. &typeid(T) or C++11 class std::type_index) with RTTI disabled, thereby removing the need for requiring RTTI enabled for many type_info use cases. Any features which require RTTI are very clearly denominated in the API's name. 3. It allows the following Boost libraries to eliminate their dependency on RTTI which is a big win for embedded systems use, and it supplies patches for these libraries replacing RTTI std::type_info with boost::type_info. Feedback from the maintainers and users of these Boost libraries is *particularly* welcomed: Any, Graph, Property Map, Property Tree, Test, Variant, Xpressive I believe that TypeIndex meets the Boost library requirements at http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html, and I have personally verified that it builds and passes all unit tests on GCC 4.6, clang 3.0 and MSVCs 10-12 [1]. I should add that Antony has already done three rounds of changes according to my feedback, and my thanks to him for being so dilligent and responsive. NOTE: Please read the TypeIndex documentation (linked to below) before asking any questions e.g. about potential code bloat etc. You'll probably find the answer already there. 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 Any questions about topics not in the documentation? Please do ask. [1]: A single unit test currently always is reported as failing to link correctly on MSVC. Antony believes this to be a bug in Windows bjam, as the Jamfile marks the link as expected to fail using link-fail but bjam does not respect this on Windows in this one use case scenario (yet weirdly the other expected link failures work fine!). Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/ _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost