AMDG On 07/27/2012 04:33 AM, Sebastian Redl wrote:
Please state clearly whether you think this library should be accepted as a Boost library. Yes.
Other questions you may want to consider: 1. What is your evaluation of the design? I like it. Given the constraints you have to work with in C++, defining and using concepts is remarkably simple. I'm a bit worried about boost::any, being in the main boost namespace, conflicting with boost::type_erasure::any. The presence of both means
On 18.07.2012 07:13, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote: that I cannot do a using directive on both namespaces. On the other hand, I can't think of a better name than any.
I'm happy to consider alternate names, but what I have now is the best I was able to come up with.
2. What is your evaluation of the implementation? Didn't look. 3. What is your evaluation of the documentation? I liked it. Some elements appear to be undocumented (e.g. random_access_iterator) - these should be documented, if only with a note that they are not really user-facing.
Most of the built in concepts could use a bit more documentation.
The abstract_printer example could use more comments in the code explaining what the important parts do and the reasoning behind them.
Okay. In Christ, Steven Watanabe