From: Aschwin Gopalan (gopalan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-16 05:04:29
so, here comes my first try at review participation.
> * What is your evaluation of the design?
I think the design is sound. The static syntax is, as far as i can see,
as readable as it can get using c++ operators.
> * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
I did use it in a small one-off project and it performed well and worked
as documented. I used both dynamic and static versions.
> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
I like the style of the documentation. It gives a good introduction and
serves well as a reference. A table of primitives would be nice.
> * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness
> of the library?
I think the library is extremely useful. I used boost::regexp and
boost::spirit quite a bit in the past, and very often I would have
needed somethin "in between", more powerful than regexp, even easier to
use than spirit. Xpressive nicely fills that gap.
> * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
> Did you have any problems?
Yes, with gcc-4.0 on linux, VC7.1 and gcc-3.3 on windows. Compile times
are quite long, as with all template-heavy libraries. I like that it is
header only, though.
> * How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
> A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
I read the docs and used tha library in a small project. I did not do
much source-code reading.
> * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I am not an expert, but a frequent user of boost::regexp and
boost::spirit (and perl regexps).
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk