Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [typeindex v3.0] Peer review begins Mon 21st ends Wed 30th

2014-04-25 2:26 GMT+04:00 Klaim - Joël Lamotte :

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Niall Douglas

...

wrote:

...

1. What is your evaluation of the design?

It looks good because it seems to fill all of my needs. If it actually fill it's promise considering the issues with what the standard provide, it's very good.

I was wondering though: - what is the behaviours of pretty_name() when the type is in namespaces (there are no example of this);

I'll add this. Actually, it will output the type with a fully qualified namespace. There's also a check in tests that such classes do not collapse: BOOST_CHECK_NE(type_id(), type_id());

- what is the behaviours of pretty_name() when the type is in an anonymous namespace? In particular when there are two types with the same name in different compilation units but in anonymous namespaces?

I'll add this case to test suite. Is there a Boost macro to ensure that anonymous namespaces are available?

...

3. What is your evaluation of the documentation?

The comparison tables helps to get quickly an understanding of how to use it so it's good. I wonder though if someone not used to typeid(), std::type_index and std::type_info would understand it quickly, but I guess the target audience is people already using them anyway.

I would like to see examples of output of name functions in the namespace, sub-namespace and anonymous namespace cases.

Will be fixed

Also, the point on shared-library boundaries is not clear to me: how does this library fix that issue exactly? A quick explaination somewhere would be good.

Will be fixed

The "Example with Boost.Variant" would benefit from a short explaination of why there are these macros in the original boost.variant implementation.

Unfortunately the full interface of type_info it is a bit hard to find because there are missing links to the actualy types on this page: http://apolukhin.github.io/type_index/boost/typeind/type_info.html Strangely enough the type_index page does have the right links: http://apolukhin.github.io/type_index/boost/typeind/type_index.html I think this should be fixed.

Also, on these pages: http://apolukhin.github.io/type_index/boost/typeind/stl_type_index.html http://apolukhin.github.io/type_index/boost/typeind/ctti_type_index.html There is no documentation, so I don't know exactly what to expect from the naming functions (are they working across compilers too?)

Will be fixed Thanks for the review! -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin