Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-04 13:33:54
Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> No opinion on that, but I've got another suggestion: Boost.Interface.
>> The name comes back from an abandoned lib proposal by Jonathan Turkanis:
>> http://www.cdiggins.com/bil.html
>> which revolves around duck typing (though with a different approach
>> than Steve's lib.) "Interface" is (surprisingly) a not much overloaded
>> word in C++.
>It's also a well-understood word in the OO community, meaning roughly the right thing.
>I guess one question is whether we'd want to sully the whole "concept-based polymorphism" flavor with OO terminology ;-)
So is that a +0.5?
I like the name because it is sufficiently general to capture the scope of the library. This name should help answer the " what this library is for, what is the motivation?" question Neil raised. It is a library for defining interfaces. Generic interfaces kind of goes without saying since it is a boost library.
I wouldn't tend to jump to the OO-specific definition of Interface when I see it as the name of a boost library, since it is one of the most general programming terms. Boost.Algorithm, Boost.Interface, Boost.Parameter. It seems to fit right in there.
Regards,
Luke