As the library is not domain-specific, everyone is very welcome to contribute a review either by sending it to the Boost mailing list, or me personally. In your review please state whether you recommend to reject or accept the library into Boost, and whether you suggest any conditions for acceptance. Other questions you might want to answer in your review are:
I recommend to *ACCEPT* the library into boost. Even though I don't have an application, this seems like a nice tool to have. It would be great if the language supported it, but since it doesn't a library implementation is the next best thing. I consider boost a good place for solid implementation for an advanced and niche feature.
* What is your evaluation of the design?
I think it's a bit too customizable; it is suffering from policy-based design. That is, I would prefer something more opinionated, because that's what a language feature would be as well. Other than that it looks good, the basic use-case is pretty straight forward. * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
It looks right. I.e. I don't know what to do differently.
* What is your evaluation of the documentation?
It is clear & detailed enough.
* What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I think it's useful for certain problems, although I don't have any need at the moment. It is really more of a tool that will come in handy at an unexpected time.
* Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems?
Yes, very simple. No problems.
* How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
I read the docs & code and tried out a simple example. I think about 4h time invested.
* Are you knowledgeable about the problems tackled by the library?
Not when it comes to open-methods, but I have of course used plenty of virtual functions in the past.