Re: [boost] [review] [STLInterfaces] STLInterfaces review starts today
This my small review of STLInterfaces, and mainly iterator_interface
- Your name Andreas Wass
- Your knowledge of the problem domain I implement mainly iterators every once in a while, both at work and for personal projects. I have mainly used iterator_interface but used container_interface as well.
- Whether you believe the library should be accepted into Boost (be clear about this) Yes, it helps cutting down on the amount of boilerplate to write.
In addition, you are strongly encouraged to answer the following questions: - What is your evaluation of the library's * Design? The design seems solid
* Implementation? Looks solid as well, only had one issue with container_interface (see below).
* Documentation? It is ok. As someone who isn't implementing containers all that often it would be nice to have signatures as well as expressions listed in the container_interface documentation
- Did you attempt to use the library? If so: * Which compiler(s)? MSVC 2017 and GCC 9
* What was the experience? Any problems? One problem with container_interface. See https://github.com/tzlaine/stl_interfaces/issues/12
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation of the review? About two hours implementing iterators and a container
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:35 AM Andreas Wass via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
This my small review of STLInterfaces, and mainly iterator_interface
- Your name Andreas Wass
Thanks for reviewing, Andreas.
* What was the experience? Any problems? One problem with container_interface. See https://github.com/tzlaine/stl_interfaces/issues/12
Yes, I agree that the destructor implementation goes too far. I'll remove it. Zach
Zach Laine via Boost said: (by the date of Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:24:11 -0600)
Yes, I agree that the destructor implementation goes too far. I'll remove it.
why did you put it there in the first place? -- # Janek Kozicki http://janek.kozicki.pl/
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 5:52 AM Janek Kozicki via Boost
Zach Laine via Boost said: (by the date of Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:24:11 -0600)
Yes, I agree that the destructor implementation goes too far. I'll remove it.
why did you put it there in the first place?
Lack of foresight? That's a very philosophy question. Zach
On 12/27/19 3:52 AM, Janek Kozicki via Boost wrote:
Zach Laine via Boost said: (by the date of Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:24:11 -0600)
Yes, I agree that the destructor implementation goes too far. I'll remove it.
why did you put it there in the first place?
LOL - my whole life is a whole sequence of bad ideas that I had to fix later. Let's not set the bar for a boost library TOO high. Robert Ramey
Robert Ramey via Boost said: (by the date of Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:06:50 -0800)
On 12/27/19 3:52 AM, Janek Kozicki via Boost wrote:
Zach Laine via Boost said: (by the date of Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:24:11 -0600)
Yes, I agree that the destructor implementation goes too far. I'll remove it.
why did you put it there in the first place?
LOL - my whole life is a whole sequence of bad ideas that I had to fix later. Let's not set the bar for a boost library TOO high.
for me too. When I get to correct my mistake I like to understand what were the reasons to make the mistake in the first place. This way the mistake becomes useful and serves as a lesson learnt. -- # Janek Kozicki http://janek.kozicki.pl/
participants (4)
-
Andreas Wass -
Janek Kozicki -
Robert Ramey -
Zach Laine