From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-20 17:39:36
Stjepan Rajko wrote:
>> - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> The general documentation, tutorials on different tasks and the
> examples are nicely organized and well written. After reading parts
> of the documentation, I was able to understand what the library was
> for, what its advantages and disadvantages are, and a good enough idea
> of how to use it.
> The reference section is very detailed but hard to navigate. After
> going to the .hpp reference page, I had to figure out that I need to
> click on any of the class names for more information, and then faced a
> dump of all members. Some grouping of the member functions according
> to their use (even just using white space to separate them) would be
> nice. I really appreciated the complexity discussions.
The reference section was generated using Boost
Quickbook/Boostbook/Doxygen toolkit, and I'm pretty it can be improved,
but I don't know if what you are asking is possible. Maybe I should just
write the reference myself instead of using the toolkit, but it's a lot
of work to do if the reference is good enough. But reviewers have the
> Overview page:
> Semantically, a Boost.Intrusivecontainer is similar
> -- space missing Boost.Intrusive<->container
> Presenting Boost.Intrusive containers page:
> Non-raw pointers: If the wants to use smart pointers instead of raw pointers
> -- If the _user_(?) wants
> Cloning Boost.Intrusive containers page:
> The second parameter is an function object that will clone value_type
> objects returning a pointer to them.
> -- is _a_ function.
> Although, this sentence struck me as slightly
> confusing - perhaps something like "that will clone value_type objects
> and return a pointer to the clone."?
> The second parameter is an function object that will destroy value_type objects.
> -- is _a_ function object
> The word concepts seems to be getting more and more of a specific
> meaning in C++... I don't know whether there is another word that
> means the same thing as "concepts" but isn't "concepts", but if you
> can think of one it might be good.
I think concepts is fine.
> std::pair< iterator, bool > insert(value_type & value) ;
> Returns: If the value is not already present inserts it and returns a
> pair containing the iterator to the new value and true. If the value
> is already present returns a pair containing an iterator to the
> already present value and false.
> -- I don't think this is quite correct. The behavior I observed is
> that the value is inserted if there are no elements equivalent to it
> in the set, according to the comparison function. Not quite the same
> as "if the value is not already present", I think.
Ok. With intrusive containers "tehere is no equivalent value" should be
better, because the value itself could be already inserted in the container.
>> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the
> Very useful. I really appreciate the possibilites that it presents
> and the associated advantages, as per the documentation.
>> And finally, every review should answer this question:
>> - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
> Yes. Really nice work!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk