Re: [boost] Proto review: a humble request

From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-24 16:16:13

Larry Evans wrote:
> On 03/23/08 15:18, Eric Niebler wrote:
>  > Proto's review ends this Friday. There's been good discussion, but very
>  > few actual reviews. Please consider writing a review, if you haven't
>  > already.
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> I've been struggling with the review; however, I still have
> a number of questions about the design.  That's why I
> haven't been able to make a review that I'm reasonably
> sure would be justifiable.  For instance, I've had problems
> understanding the difference between a proto expression
> and a grammar and summarizing that difference in some
> sort of succinct formula.  My last attempt was:
> 
>    http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20080324.160640.f8aed314.en.html

I confess I don't understand your notation in that message. I also don't 
understand what you're trying to get at with morphisms, a concept I 
don't grasp. Do you think you could try again to explain what you're 
trying to achieve?

> My tentative conclusion is that a better
> design, more along the lines of algebraic morphisms,
> would make proto easier to understand.  The only way I could be
> reasonably sure of this would be to try and prototype this.
> 
> <excuse_for_maybe_flawed_review>
> Since that would take *way* too long, I'll just jump to
> that conclusion (and possibly several others) in my review
> </excuse_for_maybe_flawed_review>

I would hope that if you're arguing for a better design that you could 
describe what that better design looks like.

> and wait for your response about if it's not workable and why.

You'd have to say what "it" is before I can say whether it's workable or 
not.

-- 
Eric Niebler
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com