From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-26 07:54:49
The review for the Quantitative Units library, submitted by Matthias
Schabel and Steven Watanabe begins today, March 26 and ends April 4.
From the documentation:
The Boost.Units library is a C++ implementation of zero runtime
overhead compile-time dimensional analysis in a general and extensible
manner, treating it as a generic metaprogramming problem. Support for
units and quantities (defined as a unit and associated value) for
arbitrary unit system models and arbitrary value types is provided, as
is a general facility for unit conversions enabling fine-grained
control over conversion. Complete SI and CGS unit system models are
provided, along with systems for angles measured in degrees, gradians,
and radians. A small subset of the SI system including only length,
mass, and time is developed in the examples as a demonstration of the
relative ease of adding new unit systems and the extensibility of the
In this review, the authors and I expect that there will be active
discussions on two topics. In every review there is a discussion of the
quality of the library implementation and documentation, and it is
obviously expected and desired here. Also, since this library is
specifically designed as a compile time library with no attempt to
provide unit conversions or other runtime facilities it is expected that
the review will include an active thread on whether this is the correct
design decision. In specific, this is a different approach than that
taken by Andy Little's submission of last year.
Because some people will be more interested in one or another of
these two discussions, I request that everyone clearly marks comment
topics to show which they are discussing. This will also improve
Matthias' and Steven's ability to respond usefully and my ability to
produce review results and recommendations that accurately reflect the
desires of the boost community.
In general, please include the following in your review.
Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager
needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along
the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers.
Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
What is your evaluation of the design?
What is your evaluation of the implementation?
What is your evaluation of the documentation?
What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have
How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
reading? In-depth study?
Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
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.
Review comments can be sent to the developer list, the user list, or
directly to me if you don't wish to comment publicly. Thank you in
advance for your time and work in this review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk