2016-06-30 20:11 GMT+03:00 Louis Dionne :

Antony Polukhin writes:

...

Hello,

PODs Flat Reflection (or PFR) is a C++14 library that represents POD structures as tuples and provides tuple-like methods for PODs. Library

has

...

a set of predefined operators for PODs and useful functions for everyday use. Works with user-defined types without any macro or boilerplate code.

[...]

Side question: any interest for making this part of Hana?

The PFR library does not depend on any of the Boost submodules and I'd like to keep it in that way. I'm planing to use PFR library as a proof-of-concept for some papers and it's simpler for me if the library depends on nothing and kept separately. But I'd be honored if Hana, Serialization or any other Boost library will use PFR. -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Ronald Garcia wrote:

Hello Antony,

I have added PFR to the review schedule.

Best, Ron

...

On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:12 PM, Antony Polukhin

wrote:

...

Hello,

PODs Flat Reflection (or PFR) is a C++14 library that represents POD structures as tuples and provides tuple-like methods for PODs. Library

has

...

a set of predefined operators for PODs and useful functions for everyday use. Works with user-defined types without any macro or boilerplate code.

Library: https://github.com/apolukhin/magic_get Docs: http://apolukhin.github.io/magic_get/ Boost Library Incubator:

http://blincubator.com/bi_library/pfr-pod-flat-reflection/?gform_post_id=160...

...

Could the PODs Flat Reflection library be put on review schedule?

Anyone wishing to become a Review Manager for the library?

-- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

I'm relatively new to the Boost community, but I would be happy to be a review manager for PFR, especially if it would otherwise stagnate on the review queue. I think PFR is very intersting, and worthy of a Boost review. I spent 2 or 3 hours studying the implementation a couple of months ago, and I have recommended several people to check it out. I think it has value as an educational exercise in addition to its real-world use cases. There isn't a lot of code, so expect the review to be swift and straightforward. For what it's worth, I predict that the main point of contention during the review will be the fact that it ultimately relies on undefined behavior to work. Before scheduling the review, I would prefer for the documentation to include an explanation of where the magic (and the UB) actually occurs in the code. I closely followed the review of the Fit library, but I did not participate. I've also read some of the archives from the Boost.Hana review, and was very marginally involved with Hana's development after its acceptance. I use Boost at work, I follow the mailing list, I went to C++Now this year, and I'm working on my own library submission. Such is the extent of my involvement with Boost, so I am admittedly not an ideal candidate for a review manager. Thanks, Barrett

On 4 Aug 2016 at 15:56, Antony Polukhin wrote:

...

I'm relatively new to the Boost community, but I would be happy to be a review manager for PFR, especially if it would otherwise stagnate on the review queue.

I'm not sure, but I think that a review manager must have an accepted Boost library. If that have changed, I'd glad to have you as a review manager!

This hasn't been the case since 2012 at least. If you remember, I review managed your library TypeIndex Antony as the first new peer review in some years. I have never got a library into Boost, nor do I expect to until at least 2018 more likely 2019. Is it my imagination or has the pace of new peer reviews recently dropped off a cliff? It seems ever since David Sankel's excellent words here after C++ Now, but that's probably a coincidence. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:31 AM, Antony Polukhin wrote:

...

On 4 Aug 2016 at 15:56, Antony Polukhin wrote:

...

...

I'm relatively new to the Boost community, but I would be happy to be a review manager for PFR, especially if it would otherwise stagnate on

пятница, 5 августа 2016 г. пользователь Niall Douglas написал: the

...

...

...

review queue.

I'm not sure, but I think that a review manager must have an accepted Boost library. If that have changed, I'd glad to have you as a review manager!

This hasn't been the case since 2012 at least. If you remember, I review managed your library TypeIndex Antony as the first new peer review in some years. I have never got a library into Boost, nor do I expect to until at least 2018 more likely 2019.

Now I remember! Thanks for the hint.

Note that while a review manager need not have a library in boost, they are expected to have at the least contributed to Boost in some capacity for a substantial period of time. Here is the text we include with every Review Wizard’s report: In general review managers are active boost participants, including library contributors, infrastructure contributors, and other mailing list participants with a substantial track record of constructive participation. Best, Ron

Barrett, I'll contact you privately in a week or two and we'll discuss the review.

...

Is it my imagination or has the pace of new peer reviews recently dropped off a cliff? It seems ever since David Sankel's excellent words here after C++ Now, but that's probably a coincidence.

This is probably because of the common summer drop-down of activity and C++17 finalization. I see nothing to worry about, we'll have some very expected libraries finalized and reviewed soon (Process library for example).

...

Niall

-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes:

http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

...

-- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost