From: John Reid (j.reid_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-31 06:01:18
> * What is your evaluation of the design?
Very good. It seems everything is configurable if needed and works as
expected out of the box.
Perhaps intermodule_holder should be the default holder specifier as
there is an unpleasant potential gotcha otherwise? The docs do not state
why not as far as I can see. An efficiency issue perhaps?
Whilst not having a strong opinion, I prefer the policy-based
configuration interface as is.
> * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
Whilst not having a strong opinion, I like the operator== as is.
> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
Extremely clearly written and well thought out. I would like to see more
explanation of the examples. I like the inclusion of the test code.
> * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I can think of several situations where I could have gained from using
the flyweight idiom and this library would have saved me time and
effort. I expect to encounter more in the future.
> * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
> * How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
> A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
A quick read through the tutorial and the examples.
> * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I'm not an expert in design patterns but I've been using C++ for a 15
> * 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk