...

If you want to use the Code Collaborator site to examine the library, you must create an account. The good news is that there are other libraries there

Mostafa wrote: that you can review, too. If you wish to avoid creating an account, then you can follow the link on the review schedule to the code in the sandbox.

Some may just want to follow a review without necessary participating in

one. Requiring a user account discourages such activity, and in my opinion, creates an artificial barrier to further engagement between newcomers, or even existing Boost watchers, and Boost, even if it is a one-sided engagement.

My thoughts,

Mostafa

This is all getting a bit ahead of my post-boostcon report on the library in a week review activities, but to answer this particular issue I'd say 1) you need a login to participate in the mailing list, 2) it's essential for spam prevention, and 3) data can be periodically put to the list to mitigate this issue. Below is a report (minor formatting tweaks) of the pimpl review generated from code collaborator. I think in all likelihood using one of the modern review tools is going to create a better environment overall. Jeff ************* Overview ID: 5 Status: Inspection Title: Pimpl idiom generalization. Creator: Vladimir Batov Created On: 2011-05-23 15:13 Finished On: 2011-05-24 11:55 Total Person Time: 01:27:06 Wall-Clock Time: 20:34:38 Total Reviewer Time: 00:46:00 LOC All Versions (Uploaded/Changed): 2997/0 LOC Final Versions (Uploaded/Changed): 2997/0 Document Pages (All): 0 Document Pages (Final): 0 Number of Defects: 16 Number of Comments: 8 ************* Overview: Support for value and pointer semantics. Support for boost::serialization. Support for separate -- interface and implementation -- class hierarchies (the Bridge pattern in GoF). Support for internal (implementation-only) run-time polymorphism (Non-Virtual Interface Idiom). Support for delegating constructors. Tutorial. Doxygen-generated docs. Linux and VS2008. ************* Participants Name Role Person-Hours Vladimir Batov Author 00:13:17 Robert Stewart Reviewer 00:46:00 Sean Chittenden Observer 00:06:13 ************* Defect Log ID Creator File Location Type Severity Text D22 Robert Stewart pimpl.hpp Line 25 Interface Major Names with two consecutive underscores are reserved for the implementation D23 Robert Stewart pimpl.hpp Line 25 Style Minor This macro name should start with "BOOST_PIMPL_" D24 Robert Stewart pimpl.hpp Line 54 Interface Minor pimpl<T>::xxxx_semantics is interesting, but xxxx_pimpl<T> is simpler and more direct. D25 Robert Stewart pimpl.hpp Line 157 Interface Major Names with double underscores are reserved for the implementation D26 Robert Stewart pimpl.hpp Line 158 Interface Major Names with double underscores are reserved for the implementation D27 Robert Stewart pimpl.hpp Line 159 Interface Major Names with double underscores are reserved for the implementation D28 Robert Stewart pimpl.hpp Line 160 Interface Major Names with double underscores are reserved for the implementation D29 Robert Stewart pimpl.hpp Line 244 Interface Major Names with double underscores are reserved for the implementation D30 Robert Stewart pimpl.hpp Line 49 Interface Minor What about Pimpl support for classes with a base class? Your design requires multiple inheritance. You could, instead, do the following: class Book : public value_pimpl<Book, Base> { }; template <class T, class Base = null_type> class value_pimpl : public Base { }; template <class T> class value_pimpl<T,null_type> { }; D31 Robert Stewart pimpl.hpp Line 291 Interface Minor This exposes too much of the implementation to the user. A construct() member function set, like the set of constructors your macro now generates, with perfect forwarding (and variadic support, when available), would be better. construct() can call the new operator and save the pointer, thereby hiding those details from the user. D32 Robert Stewart pimpl.hpp Line 57 Interface Minor This exposes the pseudo-smart pointer semantics. It shouldn't be public and it should probably be named "nil" rather than "null." The idea is that nil() returns an object with no implementation rather than a null pointer. D33 Robert Stewart pimpl-use-cases.html Line 346 Documentation Minor "It is not but not a 100% kosher" is nonsensical. Presumably, you mean something like, "This design has some problems." D35 Robert Stewart pimpl-use-cases.html Line 357 Documentation Minor s/nut shell/nutshell/ D36 Robert Stewart pimpl-use-cases.html Line 364 Documentation Minor s/More,/What's more,/ D37 Robert Stewart pimpl-use-cases.html Line 385 Documentation Minor s/for vast majority/for the vast majority/ D38 Robert Stewart pimpl-use-cases.html Line 386 Documentation Minor You can avoid the subsequent "he/she" awkwardness by rephrasing this sentence: "However, putting both <i>book1</i> and <i>book2</i> in a <i>std::set</i> results in two elements rather than one, despite the fact that they are supposed to represent the same <i>Book</i>." Overall Review Conversation Sean Chittenden I've been using Boost.Pimpl for almost a year now with great success (using it in conjunction with MSM, ASIO and Spirit). This has been an incredibly useful library for minimizing the interfaces exposed across components. There are three things that I'd like to see but are largely trivial: 1) a set of clean-room examples of the two implementations (i.e. split out the unit tests from a set of examples for pointer and value semantics), and an example of how to use Pimpl once it has been moved in to the boost namespace (I took a crack at this and was never successful at moving Pimpl in to the boost namespace).