From: Jody Hagins (jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-19 19:41:12
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:53:32 +0100
"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> What is your evaluation of the design?
It seems fairly representative of current meta template programming
techniques. I still have concerns about the tag-types bastraction.
However, I also see the advantages. Maybe BOTH style interfaces should
be provided, even though it is largely redundant. Normally redundant
interfaces are a bad thing, but I'm on the fence here...
I like the similarities with TypeTraits, and I sample usage has been
pretty easy (once I got past my initial problems).
> What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> What is your evaluation of the documentation?
As obvious from my previous comments in this thread, the documentation
need a lot of work. In addition, I think a single example, developed
throught the documentation would be helpful. A modified version
includes better examples, but the examples need to be fully explained
with lots of textual explanation (more than currently exists).
> What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I think it can be very useful, bth for unifying the implementations of
several Boost libraries and also as a good generic programming tool.
> Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any
Yes. gcc 3.2, 3.2.2. I ran into some compiler warnings, but I found
that they were due to an existing bug in the gcc 3.2 compiler.
> How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> reading? In-depth study?
My initial reading of the documentation was fairly quick, but I then
spent some time re-reading it, and a fair amount of time in a discussion
with the author. I compiled the examples and ran the tests. In
addition, I tried to write some other code to use the interface, but ran
out of time, and never got it working.
> Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Somewhat, but not near as much as some others on this list.
> And finally, every review should answer this question:
> Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be
> sure to say
> this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure your overall
Yes, though I would regret that vote if the documentation and examples
were not given a thorough re-working, taking into account all the
current feedback (and applying that feedback, pretty much all of which
would make the documentation much better, and the library more useful).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk