Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-24 15:43:14

* What is your evaluation of the design?

It looks very well designed and I especially find the flexibility of
the policy mechanism to be very well done.

* What is your evaluation of the implementation?

I haven't looked at much code, so I have no opinion here.

* What is your evaluation of the documentation?

I found the documentation to be comprehensive and with good flow.

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

In my programming career I haven't encountered a use case for this
library. That isn't to say it wouldn't be useful in other domains.

* Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
     Did you have any problems?

Nope, didn't try it.

* How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
     A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?

I did an in depth study of the documentation only.

* Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

I wasn't before I read the documentation, but I feel knowledgeable now
after going through it.

* 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, I do.

My preference on the equality mechanism would be to make it a
configuration option via a template parameter during construction with
the default being (fw1.get()==fw1.get()) instead of
(&(fw1.get())==&(fw1.get()). The benefit would be that those who would
understand when this would fail could enable the quicker behavior
while those who don't understand could remain in blissful ignorance.

I prefer the original configuration mechanism. I think that it,
combined with the very good documentation, is good enough and further
extensions would complicate things further.


David Sankel
Sankel Software
585 617 4748 (Office)
585 309 2016 (Mobile)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at