Re: [boost] FC++ Formal review half way over today (ends 2/23)

From: Darren Cook (darren_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-18 18:32:50

Hi,
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?
No.

     * 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.

Darren