On 23 Apr 2014 at 14:33, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
2. What is your evaluation of the implementation? OK.
Though I'm not enthusiastic about the name of namespace boost::typeind:: but I don't have any much better ideas. Perhaps someone else has?
To clarify the issue to everyone else, TypeIndex is in a rather unusual bind with regard to what namespace to use. Ideally I think we'd all agree that boost::type_index would be best, but then one of the issues raised last peer review was that there shouldn't be a boost::type_index type as could conflict with std::type_index, and if we hold that to be wise, then surely the same rationale applies for a boost::type_index namespace as well. So we end up with boost::typeind, which I don't think makes anyone happy, but it is safe.
IMO, the frequency of use of the namespace bti is probably so low that spelling it out is clearer, for example:
boost::typeind::type_id<T>().pretty_name() // human readable
Noted.
8. Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
Yes.
Thanks Paul for the vote and quick turnaround. I was worried that the review announcement had got lost. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work in Ireland. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/