RE: [boost] An important question

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-24 07:30:23

At 02:10 AM 9/23/2001, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:

 >I really like it. A few comments:
 >
 >1) "Function objects" category is missed from the "libraries list by
 >category" on the top of the page.

Fixed.

 >2) I think that having overlapping categories is not a bad thing, even if
 >they contain almost the same set of libraries; in particular, I wonder if 
I
 >am the only one who would like to see "Higher-order programming" category 

 >in the document, even although "Function objects" covers the most (all?)
 >of the (current) libraries we have. Funny as it might be, for me 
"Function
 >objects" just wouldn't ring a bell loud enough if I was looking for the
 >library like 'boost::function' (or not-yet-submitted 'lambda').

How about "Function objects and higher-order programming"?  To me, 
"Higer-order programming" alone is just too vague.

 >3) IMO it would be better to have separate "Template metaprogramming" and
 >"Generic programming" categories instead of the single "Generic 
Programming
 >and Template Metaprogramming helpers"; "helpers" word seems to restrict 
the
 >category too much (not all template metaprogramming libraries are 
"helpers"
 >libraries :), not to mention that the name of the "coupled" category is
 >just too long ;).

OK, changed.

 >4) 'static_assert' library is not listed under "Generic Programming..."
 >category, and IMO it should be.

Done.

 >5) I like the order! I would place "Data structures" and "Memory"
 >categories before "Inter-language support" and "Correctness and
 > testing", though; just a personal opinion, of course.

Done.

 >6) Nitpicking aside, the page looks great!

Thanks for your help!  I've given you credit at the end of the categories 
section.

Now where does Boost.Threads fit?  It seems like too important a library to 
just toss into "Miscellaneous".  A new category should be broad enough to 
cover additional contributions.  Maybe "Concurrent Programming"?

--Beman