----- Mensaje original ----- De: Larry Evans <cppljevans@suddenlink.net> Fecha: Miércoles, Diciembre 19, 2007 8:47 pm Asunto: Re: [boost] Formal review request: Flyweight Para: boost@lists.boost.org
On 11/14/07 11:57, Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
Hello,
I request that the Candidate Boost Flyweight Library be accepted into> the review queue. The latest public version of the library is described at
Joaquin,
I've only briefly looked at:
http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/flyweight/ libs/flyweight/doc/reference/flyweight.html#flyweight [...] However, I was a little worried that flyweight.html#flyweight contains: flyweight([const] T0& t0,[const] T1& t1); ... template<typename T0,...,typename Tn-1> flyweight([const] T0& t0,...,[const] Tn-1& tn-1);
which looks like maybe there's some 'implementation overlap' between flyweight and the just approved functional/forward lib. I say 'implementation overlap' because it seem that both flyweight and forward must use some sort of BOOST_PREPROCESSOR macro's to generate the overloaded call arglist. If so, then it would be nice (for those trying to understand the implementation) if the forward and flyweight could reuse some common subset of these BOOST_PREPROCESSOR macros. IOW, I'm suggesting that the macros be refactored into some common library (probably the functional/forward library since that's essentially what's happening).
Of course this suggestion is just based, as I said, on a brief look at your docs and maybe my jumping to a wrong conclusion.
Yep, I agree with you my preprocessor code should be dropped in favor of functional/forward (+ functional/factory, if accepted), and I plan to do so in case my lib is accepted in Boost. For the moment being I prefer to leave the review version as is just as to not make it depedent on (currently) external libraries. Thank you for your suggestion, hope to see at the review, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo