Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Phoenix review starts today, September 21st
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-26 19:20:44
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Hartmut Kaiser
> Hi all,
> The review of Joel de Guzmans and Dan Marsdens Phoenix V2 library starts
> today, September 21st 2008, and will end on September 30th.
> I really hope to see your vote and your participation in the discussions on
> the Boost mailing lists!
Of course, it's hard to be subjective reviewing Phoenix, since I'm
already a fan, but I'm going to try to approach this as I would any
library and pretend like I don't know who the authors are. My review
of Phoenix follows.
I think Phoenix version 2 should be rejected as a Boost library.
Instead, we should focus on version 3, i.e. Phoenix3/Lambda2.
Obviously, there's nothing "wrong" with the Phoenix2 design,
implementation, documentation, etc. However, I believe Boost users
don't appreciably gain anything from a release of version 2 as a
top-level Boost library, and I believe a premature release could
actually come at a cost to Boost users as well as Boost developers.
Accepting Phoenix2 as a Boost library is essentially just a rebranding
of the current library included with Boost.Spirit. I don't see how
users benefit from that rebranding. Potentially, the rebranding could
deteriorate user experience, since Phoenix2 addresses the same problem
domain as other Boost libraries and uses similar names (bind,
function, _1) but is not compatible or interoperable with its cousins.
Worse, it also overlaps/conflicts with the draft C++ standard library,
which many users already have access to from their compiler vendors.
This confusion is unnecessary and can be avoided by releasing Phoenix3
(which presumably will play nicely with the standard library) as an
upgrade to Boost.Lambda.
I'll briefly outline some specific technical concerns.
I believe lack of support for the TR1 result_of protocol is a
showstopper. Introducing yet another return type deduction protocol
only makes users' lives more difficult. As has been suggested the old
protocol could be removed from version 2 in favor of result_of, but in
Phoenix3 this issue is already resolved. So, why not spend time
finishing Phoenix3 rather than bringing version 2 into the post-TR1
In a similar vein, I think if a library uses placeholders, lazy
evaluation, and other bind-like features, then it's important for the
library to reconcile its relationship with the forthcoming
std::is_placeholder, std::is_bind_expression, std::bind, etc. Why not
expend effort getting it right in Phoenix3 rather than modernizing
Giovanni noted version 2's lack of conformance to the standard
algorithm concept requirements, namely Assignability. Conformance to
the usual FunctionObject concepts also seems like something that
should be required of newly accepted Boost FP libraries. Why not spend
time insuring that Phoenix3 is conforming rather than retro-fitting
> - What is your evaluation of the design?
If we were evaluating the library eight years ago, I would have no
complaints. But we're evaluating it today, so I have to reiterate that
lack of interoperability with the draft standard's FP features is an
unacceptable design for a contemporary Boost library.
> - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
I haven't really looked at the implementation. I'm kind of reluctant
to invest too much time reviewing the current version when I know the
Proto port is coming, and that seems to be the actual, valuable,
long-term implementation. The code under consideration is
known/intended to be transitory; what I'm actually looking forward to
is the replacement! I mean we can already use Phoenix2 by including
boost/spirit/phoenix.hpp. Moving the code to boost/phoenix isn't
really a reason to get excited.
> - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
The documentation is excellent. I mostly looked at the "starter kit,"
which is as good of a quick start guide as any I've seen. However, I
seem to remember that the old documentation had an excellent
introductory chapter that gave a brief overview of FP and touched on
the history of Phoenix. I didn't notice that material in the current
documentation. If it was removed, it should be brought back!
> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
Phoenix2 is certainly as useful as Boost.Lambda. However, there is
some overhead (in man-months, not CPU cycles) in migrating existing
Boost.Lambda code to Phoenix2. I suspect that many users will not find
a compelling reason to incur that expense. Also, Phoenix2 makes no
guarantees as to Boost.Lambda interoperability; i.e. to a new user,
version 2 looks and feels like a completely different library with new
documentation to read, new corner cases to discover, etc. So, I
suspect that many users will not find a compelling reason to "learn"
Phoenix2 for new projects when Boost.Lambda suffices. So, why not
spend time making the "upgrade" from Boost.Lambda to Lambda2 (a.k.a.
Phoenix3) intuitive and painless rather than making Phoenix2 more
appealing/useful than Boost.Lambda?
> - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any
Yes, I've used Phoenix with several releases of gcc in the past. For
the review, I used gcc 4.0. I've never had any problems.
> - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> reading? In-depth study?
I've been following the review discussion. I've played around with
Phoenix at various times, though I'm not sure that you would call my
evaluation "in depth."
> - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I have some experience using FP in C++.
Finally, I believe that all the comments and discussion during this
review period will strengthen Phoenix3 in the long run. And regardless
of the final review decision, Phoenix2 will certainly be remembered in
history as a widely admired library and a major milestone in the
evolution of FP library techniques in C++.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk