Please state clearly whether you think this library should be accepted as a Boost library. Yes.
Other questions you may want to consider: 1. What is your evaluation of the design? I like it. Given the constraints you have to work with in C++, defining and using concepts is remarkably simple. I'm a bit worried about boost::any, being in the main boost namespace, conflicting with boost::type_erasure::any. The presence of both means
On 18.07.2012 07:13, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote: that I cannot do a using directive on both namespaces. On the other hand, I can't think of a better name than any.
2. What is your evaluation of the implementation? Didn't look. 3. What is your evaluation of the documentation? I liked it. Some elements appear to be undocumented (e.g. random_access_iterator) - these should be documented, if only with a note that they are not really user-facing. The abstract_printer example could use more comments in the code explaining what the important parts do and the reasoning behind them. 4. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? High. I know I've written my own custom type erasures more than once. This library would save a lot of work there. 5. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? Didn't try. 6. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? I read the documentation thoroughly, twice. 7. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Yes, I would say so.
Sebastian