Re: [boost] Answers re BENUM library for automated enum streaming

Hi all, Should I expect any further feedback re BENUM? David, Marcus: we've discussed specific issues (portability of variadic macros, smart_enum features) - do you have further questions, comments re my replies, or recommended actions before submission for formal review? Should I be doing more to pursue suggestions or solicit feedback? Is anyone else currently reviewing the code in the vault, experiment with usage in a real system, or planning to do so? If so, can we keep in touch re progress? If I don't hear anything to the contrary this week, I'll start doing the preparations for requesting a formal review, specifically my TODO list currently looks like: - better (HTML) docs / simpler usage examples, - clean up comment in headers (doxygen style?)/copyrights, - optimise Info_Container value-to-identifier resolution (have resisted early optimisation as design/functional changes might invalidate), - add a few representative container/feature combinations in easier-to-use macros. BTW / I stumbled across an old submission for "boost_enum" - it seems to "go the whole hog" and address some of the bit-masking issues BENUM does (though not as flexibly ;-P). This contrasts with smart_enum's relative simplicity but cleanliness. I love simplicity (I wrote a cut-down version of BENUM for my introspective preprocessor project which only supports incrementing-from-0 enumerations and no bit masking/ORing because I didn't like the idea of all the extra baggage/inefficiencies), but I think people look to boost for reasonably generic and comprehensive solutions. But, boost_enum work seemed to peter out. smart_enum petered out. Both had much more early interest displayed than BENUM. Should I consider the "enum" space a dead end - "abandon all hope ye who enter here"? Am I wasting everyone's time? My theory is that BENUM has greater potential for widespread end-user acceptance and actual use (despite less portability) because of its enum-like notation, and that that makes BENUM worth pursuing. A view I'd welcome comments on. Thanks, Tony

on Wed Sep 17 2008, Tony D <tony_in_da_uk-AT-yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Hi all,
Should I expect any further feedback re BENUM? David, Marcus: we've discussed specific issues (portability of variadic macros, smart_enum features) - do you have further questions, comments re my replies, or recommended actions before submission for formal review?
Not really; I haven't had any time to look at the library but I don't think it's solving any problems that are pressing for me personally, so I only jumped in when I saw an issue where I obviously might have something to contribute that would help clarify things. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

(Sorry for not replying sooner) Tony D wrote:
Hi all,
Should I expect any further feedback re BENUM? David, Marcus: we've discussed specific issues (portability of variadic macros, smart_enum features) - do you have further questions, comments re my replies, or recommended actions before submission for formal review? Should I be doing more to pursue suggestions or solicit feedback? Is anyone else currently reviewing the code in the vault, experiment with usage in a real system, or planning to do so? If so, can we keep in touch re progress? If I don't hear anything to the contrary this week, I'll start doing the preparations for requesting a formal review, specifically my TODO list currently looks like:
Small detail: My little embryo is called EnumIO, not smart_enum. Smart_enum is probably something different altogether. I'm quite happy with the answers, and I think it suits as a good replacement for my lib. I took a brief look at the code, and besides it not being formatted according to boost standards, it looked pretty ok. I still think my little lib is useful, mainly because it doesn't rely on exotic features and it can also be used in a non-intrusive fashion. But I see no bigger conflict as your will probably win the future. (Besides, I'll have to figure out a few things before I can publish mine for review, as noted in the link I posted a few mails back. If I ever get there there will probably be some discussion about integration, etc.) Cheers, /Marcus
participants (3)
-
David Abrahams
-
Marcus Lindblom
-
Tony D