Re: [boost] [Review] Quantitative Units library review begins today, March 26

From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-26 09:13:30

   My original post did not properly include the address where you can 
get the library. Below it is updated to do so. Sorry for the inconvenience.
                        John

   The review for the Quantitative Units library, submitted by Matthias
Schabel and Steven Watanabe begins today, March 26 and ends April 4. The
library is available at

http://www.boost-consulting.org/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filename
=mcs_units_v0.5.8.zip&directory=Units&

With the name mcs_units_v0.7.2.zip

Other entries in this directory are not the library up for review.

   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 library architecture.

   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 any problems?
     •     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.

             John Phillips
             Review Manager