Re: [boost] [review] [STLInterfaces] STLInterfaces review starts today

-----Original Message----- From: Boost On Behalf Of Barrett Adair via Boost Sent: 11 December 2019 00:21 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Barrett Adair Subject: [boost] [review] [STLInterfaces] STLInterfaces review starts today

Dear Boost,

The formal review of Zach Laine's STLInterfaces library begins now, and will run through December 19. Please participate in this review if you can. To submit a review, please reply to this email with the following information: - Your name - Your knowledge of the problem domain - Whether you believe the library should be accepted into Boost (be clear about this)

In addition, you are strongly encouraged to answer the following questions: - What is your evaluation of the library's * Design? * Implementation? * Documentation? * Tests? * Usefulness? - Did you attempt to use the library? If so: * Which compiler(s)? * What was the experience? Any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation of the review?

STLInterfaces is a C++14 library targeting ISO standardization. The following templates are provided, all C++20-friendly:

1. iterator_interface - a modern version of the iterator_facade and iterator_adaptor parts of Boost.Iterator 2. view_interface - a pre-C++20 implementation of C++20's eponymous feature 3. container_interface - a tool to eliminate boilerplate when writing new containers

We would appreciate answers to these library-specific questions: - Do you like the name container_interface? sequence_container_interface is more precise, but seems a bit long. - Would you use something like container_interface, but for associative containers? If so, should it assume a node-based interface, a la std::map and std::set? This assumption would preclude alternative associative container-like types, such as flat_map.

Code: https://github.com/tzlaine/stl_interfaces Docs: https://tzlaine.github.io/stl_interfaces/doc/html/index.html

This proposal must be worth consideration, but are Boosters suffering from review fatigue after the long discussions on static_string (and about to be distracted by seasonal activities? 😉 ) Extend review period? Paul