Hi All, I am pleased to formally announce that the Typeof library has been accepted into Boost. There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library. This has been a slightly odd review in that the implementation and documentation changed during the review period. However as modifications to the implementation were mainly to improve compile time performance, which is the major weakness of the library, I feel that this should not affect the result. Overall there was a feeling that the documentation could be improved. Following are some of my comments, though views of others would be welcomed.As I understand it the documentation is being reworked, so some of these points may be out of date. 1) The STL support section would be better later. Should there be a formal list of the stl registration libraries, with their headers. The STL headers would also be useful as useage examples with links? 2) A note regarding closing namespaces when registering a type (cited by David Abrahams). and an example in a namespace just to clarify this. 3) Separate examples of each useage with types, templates and values etc (also cited by David Abrahams). . This section of the documentation is slightly short IMO. 4) More information regarding incrementing-registration-group. How will separate inclusions ( eg different order) affect it. eg the index of each type registered cannot be relied on. In fact a statement regarding anything in the implementation being subject to change might also be 5) More information regarding the differences from decltype. e.g. is there a way for the user to simulate decltype more closely, eg by use of remove_reference. Finally.. Thanks to Arkadiy Vertleyb and Peder Holt for all their work. regards Andy Little
Hi all, "Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
I am pleased to formally announce that the Typeof library has been accepted into Boost.
First and formost, I would like to thank Peder for sharing this effort with me; Thank you Andy for investing your time and energy in being our review manager; Thank you David, Tobias, and Alexander for your reviews, and for many useful ideas you came up during and before the review period; Thank you all who participated in earlier discussions for your ideas and help; And last but not least, thank you all who downloaded the library, and thus indirectly expressed their interest. Without high download counter we may have given up long ago. We still hope to hear from you :-) Best regards, Arkadiy
From: "Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk>
I am pleased to formally announce that the Typeof library has been accepted into Boost.
Congratulations Arkadiy and Peder.
There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library.
While I'm not questioning the value of accepting this library specifically, doesn't it seem less than ideal to accept a library that -- for whatever reasons -- garnered only three reviews? While the library was truly peer reviewed, and the reviews were by knowledgeable folk, the base of input is narrow as a result. Should this be the norm? -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk>
I am pleased to formally announce that the Typeof library has been accepted into Boost.
Congratulations Arkadiy and Peder.
There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library.
While I'm not questioning the value of accepting this library specifically, doesn't it seem less than ideal to accept a library that -- for whatever reasons -- garnered only three reviews?
Yes. Less than ideal.
While the library was truly peer reviewed, and the reviews were by knowledgeable folk, the base of input is narrow as a result. Should this be the norm?
Definitely it shouldn't be the norm. In this case, I'm glad the library was accepted, though. I've been looking forward to the typeof review for a long time, but wasn't able to particpate because of preparation for the release. Maybe it's not a good idea to have reviews when a release is imminent. We might considered a rule that there have to be a certain minimum number of thorough positive reviews before acceptance, but in my view a review manager ought to be able to give appropriate weight to the fact that there were a small number of reviews and accept the library if appropriate. Perhaps the best thing would be for some daring review manager to set a precedent by rejecting a library on the basis of too few reviews. (Has this ever happened?) Jonathan
"Rob Stewart" wrote:
There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library.
While I'm not questioning the value of accepting this library specifically, doesn't it seem less than ideal to accept a library that -- for whatever reasons -- garnered only three reviews?
While the library was truly peer reviewed, and the reviews were by knowledgeable folk, the base of input is narrow as a result. Should this be the norm?
Low number of reviewers is nothing unusual - I have seen it in previous reviews. What helped to attract more people was extended review period (in case of FSM/Statecharts). /Pavel
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: "Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk>
I am pleased to formally announce that the Typeof library has been accepted into Boost.
Congratulations Arkadiy and Peder.
There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library.
While I'm not questioning the value of accepting this library specifically, doesn't it seem less than ideal to accept a library that -- for whatever reasons -- garnered only three reviews?
Yes.
While the library was truly peer reviewed, and the reviews were by knowledgeable folk, the base of input is narrow as a result. Should this be the norm?
No. Not sure what we can do about it. I think the review wizard should weigh in here. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
"Rob Stewart" <stewart@sig.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:200505312133.j4VLXJs11686@vanzandt.balstatdev.susq.com...
From: "Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk>
There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library.
While I'm not questioning the value of accepting this library specifically, doesn't it seem less than ideal to accept a library that -- for whatever reasons -- garnered only three reviews?
IMHO, not the number of reviews count, but their quality.
While the library was truly peer reviewed, and the reviews were by knowledgeable folk, the base of input is narrow as a result. Should this be the norm?
Is there anything like a norm? I think that it strongly depends on the libraries domain. Johannes
"Rob Stewart" wrote
Andy Little wrote
I am pleased to formally announce that the Typeof library has been accepted into Boost.
Congratulations Arkadiy and Peder.
There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library.
While I'm not questioning the value of accepting this library specifically, doesn't it seem less than ideal to accept a library that -- for whatever reasons -- garnered only three reviews?
I based my decision simply on the fact that the functionality is (though often discussed on comp.std.c++) sorely lacking in the current language, which is hopefully to change if the decltype proposal is passed. IMO the number of reviews is often an exponential function of the complexity of the library ( The 'bike shed' syndrome). As well as representing functionality not currently available in the core language, this library uses two of the most complicated features of boost, mpl and the preprocessor, which I would guess dramatically cuts down the number of boosters who found it easy to understand the implementation, (or perahps even the purpose of the library) and therefore felt able to submit a review.( OTOH Take a look inside the lambda library and see the library specific workarounds curently being used to emulate this type of functionality.) As Jonathan Turkanis stated many are busy working on the next release, which also has an impact. Finally of course, the review manager has absolute power and is unelected. Perhaps this is a weakness in the current scheme. Personally though I think that the current scheme is practical and works ok, and any modifications in that direction would result in it becoming more difficult to recruit review managers. regards Andy Little
"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
Finally of course, the review manager has absolute power and is unelected. Perhaps this is a weakness in the current scheme.
Quite the opposite.
Personally though I think that the current scheme is practical and works ok, and any modifications in that direction would result in it becoming more difficult to recruit review managers.
Yup. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (7)
-
Andy Little -
Arkadiy Vertleyb -
David Abrahams -
Johannes Brunen -
Jonathan Turkanis -
Pavel Vozenilek -
Rob Stewart