From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-22 02:50:06
* What is your evaluation of the design?
* What is your evaluation of the implementation?
* What is your evaluation of the documentation?
No opinion on the design, implementation or documentation. All seemed
adequate for a small macro.
Initially, my thought was, here we go again, another macro utility. I
didnt like the "FOR_EACH" macro that got accepted into boost late last
year either. In my mind, this "ScopeExit" macro would have to be
extrodinarly useful for me to use it in my code. I don't mind that
library authors use macros internally, but for "public" code, and a
full blown boost library, I'm not convinced.
* What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I wont be using it. However, thats just me, I dont like macros.
* Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you
have any problems?
No. Just read the documentation.
* How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A
quick reading? In-depth study?
Less than 1 hour.
* 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.
No. I fear that this macro, along with the "FOR_EACH" macro, that
boost developers are warming up to "macros" in general. We should
stick to standard syntax, even if the standard syntax is verbose and
ugly. Macros always come back to bite you. My no vote is sole
based on my dislike of macros. Macros internal to a library are
fine, but for a public interface, I'm not persuaded.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk