RE: [boost] IOStreams formal review start

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-11 09:55:38

 | -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Garland
| Sent: 29 August 2004 01:10
| To: boost
| Subject: [boost] IOStreams formal review start
| 
| http://home.comcast.net/~jturkanis/iostreams/
| 

I have returned from holiday and finally caught up with all the extensive
(gruelling!) review postings.

I now feel I need another holiday ;-)

In view of the erudite comments from experts, I will be brief (brevity being
the soul of wit).

What is your evaluation of the design?  Sound.

What is your evaluation of the implementation? Sound.

What is your evaluation of the documentation? Much better than average. 

What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? Very
useful.

Did you try to use the library?  With what compiler?  Did you have any
problems?  Have worked on/with some parts previously.

How much effort did you put into your evaluation?  A re-reading. 

Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Slightly.

Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?   Yes
definitely.

After considering the overlap between more_io4,
I am less worried that there is a serious problem.

It is not clear to me that there are any real clashes - except perhaps
between the authors ;-)

If there is duplication, and the authors can't agree, then perhaps we can
simply leave users to decide which they prefer.

PS It was disappointing to see the discussion on newl /newline going over
the same ground again.  As a group, we have failed to come to a conclusion
and document our conclusions, rationale and decision on this minor but
ubiquitous issue.  My recollection is that the case was not overwhelming,
but that it was the 'Right Thing To Do', and that we should have concluded
the matter there and then with a mini-review.