Hi, First, thanks Jean Luis and Dmitry for the submission and managing the review. I've got a couple of questions for the author regarding the long-term aim of the library: * Is your long-term goal to present open methods for standardization, using this library as a way to gain field experience? Or is the library aimed at the end user as-is, with no long-term standardization intent? * If standardization is your goal, have you checked on any committee member about how possible is moving this forward? Thanks, Ruben. On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 at 15:15, Дмитрий Архипов via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Dear Boost community. The peer review of the proposed Boost.OpenMethod will start on 28th of April and continue until May 7th. OpenMethods implements open methods in C++. Those are "virtual functions" defined outside of classes. They allow avoiding god classes, and visitors and provide a solution to the Expression Problem, and the banana-gorilla-jungle problem. They also support multiple dispatch. This library implements most of Stroustrup's multimethods proposal, with some new features, like customization points and inter-operability with smart pointers. And despite all that open-method calls are fast - on par with native virtual functions.
You can find the source code of the library at https://github.com/jll63/Boost.OpenMethod/tree/master and read the documentation at https://jll63.github.io/Boost.OpenMethod/. The library is header-only and thus it is fairly easy to try it out. In addition, Christian Mazakas (of the C++ Alliance) has added the candidate library to his vcpkg repository (https://github.com/cmazakas/vcpkg-registry-test). The library is also available in Compiler Explorer under the name YOMM2.
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:
* What is your evaluation of the design? * What is your evaluation of the implementation? * What is your evaluation of the documentation? * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? * Are you knowledgeable about the problems tackled by the library?
Thanks in advance for your time and effort!
Dmitry Arkhipov, Staff Engineer at The C++ Alliance.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost