Re: [boost] [Review] Fixed strings library

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-06 05:05:01

"Hartmut Kaiser"  wrote

[...]

> The main points listed during review were:
> - Do we need a fixed_string library at all, is it worth the overhead?
> - Insufficient/confusing documentation
>  . insufficient description of general design, design rationales and
> motivations
>  . it says more about implementation details rather then the public
> interface
>  . missing or insufficient documentation of parts of the library
> - The overall architecture of the implementation is too complicated and
> needs to be reworked
> - Missing interface for construction/interaction with std::string's
> - Unclear benefit to have the strings truncated to avoid overflows
> - Missing performance comparison with std::string and other alternatives
> - Compilation problems with the library as submitted for review

I'm wondering if this doesnt bring up a point regarding this review. In
hindsight was fixed_strings ready for review?

http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm#Review_Manager

In hindsight ,which is a wonderful thing, shouldnt review manager have stopped
fixed_strings review? Can review  manger stop a review?

I say this not to criticise Hartmut( I hope that experience as review manager
will mean he will be interested to do the job again), but to enhance the
character of the review managers role and point up this case as one example of
what pitfalls  review manager should look out for when thinking about future
review requests.

Also to Reece. Do you think in hindsight ficed-strings is review ready?

I'd like to clarify this  as I hope to submit a library of my own some day. It
brings up the question of when is a library in a fit state

regards
Andy Little