From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-03 16:48:35
> 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?
I like it. Did not go into too much detail, but from what I've looked
at, it's ok.
One thing I don't like is the initialization of boost::flyweight:
I think there could be a simpler way to do this:
> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
Very nice - I had no problem reading through the basics.
Did not look much at extending the lib.
> * 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?
I've looked at the docs a few times; the time spent would be around 1.5h .
> * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I've implemented something like this, but at a much smaller scale.
> 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.
> Ion Gaztañaga
> - Review Manager -
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk