From: Darren Cook (darren_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-18 18:32:50
This review is mainly based about the lambda part of FC++, as I've not had
chance to have a proper look at the other parts (if I do before review
period is over I'll add a 2nd review, but that is unlikely). I have no
experience in Haskell or other functional programming languages.
* What is your evaluation of the documentation?
Seems fine and comprehensive. I think more motivating examples are required;
it felt a bit abstract.
* What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I think Boost Lambda and FC++ lambda expressions are both about as ugly as
each other, and the BLL versions seem to be a few characters shorter. So
even if FC++ is accepted I will continue to use BLL.
I am interested in the lazy-evaluation list, but cannot think of any code
where I'd need it enough to justify the learning curve and the extra dependency.
* Did you try to use the library?
* How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
About 2-3hrs reading docs and reading/writing mails.
* Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
No, simply as I personally have no need for it. Also it seems the more
libraries in boost the longer it takes to get a regression-passing release
out, so adding it just because it is clever and well-written is not a good
enough reason in my opinion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk