Re: [boost] [review] Fast track formal review of Forward library begins today

From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-04 20:56:02

John Torjo wrote:

>      * What is your evaluation of the design?

simple and effective. I'd like to see more tweakable
parameters for specific uses. I frequently deal with
different number expansions in a case to case basis.
For example, is it possible to have arity 3 for function
X and arity-5 for function Y? A single number seems
wasteful if I'm sure that a certain use needs only a few.
Is that possible?

>      * What is your evaluation of the implementation?

again, simple and effective.

>      * What is your evaluation of the documentation?

concise and sufficient for its purpose. I'd like to see
more information on result type deduction though. It says:
"Boost.ResultOf  can be used to determine the result
types of specific call expressions.". Ok, but what does
that really imply? It would be good to have some information
on this and its implications. For instance, for polymorphic
function objects, do we have to supply all the nested /result/
metafunction for all overloads? How can the forward_adapter
template know what to return? Etc. A more useful example
would be one that actually returns something (instead of just
void). I'd like to see an example for a polymorphic function.

>      * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?

It's been in use in fusion for quite some time now. Very useful.
Without this, and before this, we had to resort to lots of
code duplication with tons of macro expansions everywhere.

>      * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?

It's been part of fusion which is already well tested.

>        Did you have any problems?

Nope.

>      * How much effort did you put into your evaluation?

As main author of fusion, I do a review of all code and
components going into fusion.

>        A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?

See above.

>      * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

Yes.

> 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.

Yes.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net