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.
>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
>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
>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
>and Template Metaprogramming helpers"; "helpers" word seems to restrict
>category too much (not all template metaprogramming libraries are
>libraries :), not to mention that the name of the "coupled" category is
>just too long ;).
>4) 'static_assert' library is not listed under "Generic Programming..."
>category, and IMO it should be.
>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.
>6) Nitpicking aside, the page looks great!
Thanks for your help! I've given you credit at the end of the categories
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"?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk