Re: [boost] [function types] Formal Review begins today.

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?

N/A.

> 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
> 
> problems?

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
> 
> opinion.

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).