Re: [boost] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-01 09:48:39

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hartmut Kaiser" <hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>; <boost-announce_at_[hidden]>; <boost-
> users_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:22 PM
> Subject: [boost] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th
> 
 > The formal review of the Interval Template Library (ITL) starts today,
> > February 18th, 2010 and will end February 27th, 2010.
> > ITL is being developed by Joachim Faulhaber.

> > - What is your evaluation of the design?

Clearly meets some users needs. (see below on interval_trees).

> > - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> 
Works for some users.

I note some reservations and discussion about the underlying storage that might
be a problem with large scale projects.

It doesn't seem to be practical problem for some reasonably large scaled
projects, and a different framework might very well have other disadvantages.
So I don't think this is a reason to put the library on hold now.

(Aside - I note that this is yet another example of a reviewer coming up with a
fundamental objection that would been very much better aired a very long time
OK.  I believe this would be less likely to happen if 'candidate libraries' were
more exposed to public view, and acquire more users who could spot weaknesses.
I also can be very sympathetic to authors who won't want to go back to square
one at this point in the process.  They or others (Phil? ;-) - are more likely
to do this with real uses and real uses waiting).

> > - What is your evaluation of the documentation?

Comprehensive, clear, good enough.  (One can never have enough tutorial, and
examples of which there are already good ones).  If one was starting now, I
would recommend using Doxygen.  This would ensure that docs and code don't get
out of step.  But this is a very significant task to retrofit - especially
adding Doxygen comments to the very many functions etc - been there, done that!
Note to would be Boost submitters, add Doxygen comments as you go along - they
will help you and others later.)

I also didn't much like inventions of new 'jargon' like "aggrovering" or "unon".

> > - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?

The examples given show that there must be many uses.
 
> > - Did you try to use the library?  With what compiler?  Did you have any
problems?

Played with previous version.  No problems with MSVC.
> 
> > - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> > reading? In-depth study?

A quick re-reading.

> I've slightly followed the library evolution since its first announcement, and
I did quick
> reading of the last documentation.
> 
> > - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

Novice.

FWIW, I think that it should be accepted into Boost.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, UK   LA8 8AB
[phone], mobile [phone]
pbristow_at_[hidden]