Re: [Boost-users] [Containers Library Review] The review of the Containers library by Ion Gaztanaga starts today
El 17/08/2011 5:12, Edward Diener escribió:
I think the documentation is good, but it is hard to find overviews of the separate containers. They are buried in the reference whereas I would like to see them as separate topics in the TOC.
It seems that documentation is the main issue of the review, I hope tools like autoindex will help me improve this and still maintain automatic reference documentation.
For the example in the "Emplace: Placement insertion" topic there is a 'non_copy_movable ncm;' in the main function but it is never used, which is confusing. I did get the idea of emplacement from the example and understand what it is.
Thanks for spotting this.
There is mention in the Introduction that "Containers support stateful allocators" but that appears to be all that is written about that topic. I would like to know what that is about.
Ok, this has been already requested, I'll fix it.
The "Recursive Containers" topic gives a nice example but does not explain what a recursive container entails and why a recursive container is not guaranteed by the standard. Some further information should be given in this topic.
Ok
For all of the containers which have the same names as the std:: containers, it should be pointed out what their benefits are. if it is a matter of all those containers having move semantics, placement insertion, recursive containers, and stateful allocators, that should be mentioned. One would like to know why one should use the Containers library containers rather than the std:: containers without having to read the description of each container.
Ok Best, Ion
Dear Ion,
2011/8/17 Ion Gaztañaga
El 17/08/2011 5:12, Edward Diener escribió:
For all of the containers which have the same names as the std:: containers, it should be pointed out what their benefits are. if it is a matter of all those containers having move semantics, placement insertion, recursive containers, and stateful allocators, that should be mentioned. One would like to know why one should use the Containers library containers rather than the std:: containers without having to read the description of each container.
Ok
Some performance tests might be nice here too (and the code for generating them should be incorporated in the distribution), comparing to std:: libraries shipped with the popular compilers. It'll help sell your library and it'll serve as a nice benchmark later as vendors update their standard library implementations. At least, I'd be interested in such information and if test code is avaiable, I could easily run the testcases myself. Best, Dee
El 17/08/2011 12:20, Diederick C. Niehorster escribió:
Some performance tests might be nice here too (and the code for generating them should be incorporated in the distribution), comparing to std:: libraries shipped with the popular compilers. It'll help sell your library and it'll serve as a nice benchmark later as vendors update their standard library implementations. At least, I'd be interested in such information and if test code is avaiable, I could easily run the testcases myself.
This is a good idea, but it'd require a huge amount of work if we think about an extensive benchamark framework. Maybe some basic tests?
Hi Ion,
2011/8/17 Ion Gaztañaga
El 17/08/2011 12:20, Diederick C. Niehorster escribió:
Some performance tests might be nice here too (and the code for generating them should be incorporated in the distribution), comparing to std:: libraries shipped with the popular compilers. It'll help sell your library and it'll serve as a nice benchmark later as vendors update their standard library implementations. At least, I'd be interested in such information and if test code is avaiable, I could easily run the testcases myself.
This is a good idea, but it'd require a huge amount of work if we think about an extensive benchamark framework. Maybe some basic tests?
Some simple tests is already very nice :) Nothing too fancy, users will have to test in their own usage case as well of course! Best, Dee
on Wed Aug 17 2011, Ion Gaztañaga
El 17/08/2011 12:20, Diederick C. Niehorster escribió:
Some performance tests might be nice here too (and the code for generating them should be incorporated in the distribution), comparing to std:: libraries shipped with the popular compilers. It'll help sell your library and it'll serve as a nice benchmark later as vendors update their standard library implementations. At least, I'd be interested in such information and if test code is avaiable, I could easily run the testcases myself.
This is a good idea, but it'd require a huge amount of work if we think about an extensive benchamark framework. Maybe some basic tests?
Find the performance tests being used by clang's libc++ and try those? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
El 19/08/2011 23:55, Dave Abrahams escribió:
Find the performance tests being used by clang's libc++ and try those?
Thanks, is that code license-compatible with Boost license? Best, Ion
on Fri Aug 19 2011, Ion Gaztañaga
El 19/08/2011 23:55, Dave Abrahams escribió:
Find the performance tests being used by clang's libc++ and try those?
Thanks, is that code license-compatible with Boost license?
IANAL, but I think so. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
participants (3)
-
Dave Abrahams -
Diederick C. Niehorster -
Ion Gaztañaga