Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-17 14:12:58
On Jul 17, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 7/16/2011 3:02 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>>
>>>>> 22. [WANT] I'd add an annex to the docs to compare this library with
>>>>> other libraries (e.g., the "mirror" library?) that exist out there for
>>>>> introspection (i.e., some sort of literature review).
>>>>
>>>> if there were an existing Boost library I might do it.
>>>
>>> Why would you compare Boost.TTI only with other Boost libraries? You
>>> should do a literature search on C++ introspection in general and
>>> compare Boost.TTI with *all* known C++ introspection library
>>> even/especially if they are not in Boost.
>>
>> I disagree with you. It is not the responsibility of a library developer to
>> investigate and document every other possibile similar library. I can
>> understand that if there were a C++ standard library or a Boost library
>> which offered similar features to what another Boost library is attempting
>> to provide, then it would be good for the developer to compare his library
>> to what is already exists in that domain to illustrate the advantages and
>> disadvantages of one's own approach.
>
> What do other Boosters think of this?
I would hope that out of intellectual curiosity Eddie would want to look at other solutions to the problem, especially now that his library is "complete" and accepted. But I think it is the community's responsibility to bring up comparisons. E.g. I hoped that Matus Chochlik and Matt Calabrese would bring some perspective to the review, if not actually vote.