"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cj7d2c$tta$1@sea.gmane.org... | Hello Thorsten, | | > | - small readable code examples | > | > ok, what do you find particular non-readable about all the examples in the | > example section? | > | They should fit into 1/2 of page whenever possible. yes, I'm sure there will be lots of improvements to the docs before a post-review. | > | 7. docs, Introduction: Assignable and | > | Copy Constructible could be hyperlinked. | > | > ok, don't people know this? | > | Boost authors for sure. Ther are also beginners. yes, agreed. | | _____________________________________________________ | > | 14 Clonable concept: would it make any sense to provide | > | support for placement new/delete also? | > | > I can't answer that question since I have never had the need to use it. I | hope | > other reviwers can anser it. | > | This feature can be likely accomplished when object | factories get supported ok. | | _____________________________________________________ | > | 15. Clonable concept implementation: | > | shouldn't there be try/catch in: | > | | > | template< class T > | > | void delete_clone( const T* t ) | > | { | > | checked_delete( r ); | > | } | > | | > | to enforce the constraints? | > | At least it would be useful to have it | > | in debug mode to report violation. | > | > but then again, shouldn't it then be in checked_delete()? In some | > sense I feel it | > beyond a library to cope with "fools" :-) | > | checked_delete accepts 0. smart containers cannot. yes, so you want try { if( t == 0 ) throw something(); checked_delete( t ); } ? :-) | > | These exceptions should be declared in | > | <boost/smart_containers_fwd.hpp>. | > | > what for? | > | it is quite common. | | #include <...fwd> // no need for full declaration or to search where | exceptions are | | try { | some_func_using_some_smart_container() | } catch(smart_container_base_exception&) { | } yes, ok. | | _____________________________________________________ | > | 65. details/scoped_deleter.hpp: there seems no need | > | for scoped_array here (only to bloat executable | > | and slower compilation). | > | > hm...I need to manage a resource and I prefer not to do so manually. | > I canøt imagine that scoped_array<> afffects the executable at all. | > | There could be performance advantage not to use scoped_array. | And it is one line in destructor. yeah, I'll look into it. | > | _____________________________________________________ | > | 67. It would be nice to support systems without | > | enabled exceptions (BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS). | > | > this is harder than it seems because I would have to check return values | for | > 0, right? | > | I think no. Failed allocation should terminate application | in such case. ok, that makes it easy. | > what do you suggest? | > | Alexandrescu's style? yes, ok. | One more question: | | - if I have polymorphic hierarchy, will the allocate_clone(T*) | clone the dynamic type of class or its static type? it's up to you. If you let it return ptr->clone() which is virtual, then its virtual ortherwise its not. So in the examples from the toturial, animals are cloned virtually. | I ask because | there's semifinished library (polymorphic_map) in Files section | that could be used for such purpose. I took a look at this stuff. It has AFAICT nothing to do with smart containers, in ptr_map<key,T>, T will be heap-allocated. in polymorphic_map<key,T>, key might be heap-allocated. The usage for poymorphic_map seems to be very narrow AFAICT. br Thorsten