Re: [boost] [ITL][Review] A late mini review

Subject: Re: [boost] [ITL][Review] A late mini review
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-01 11:02:42

Hi Thomas,

thank you again for reviewing my library!

2010/2/28 Thomas Klimpel <Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden]>

> > - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
>
> I took a cursory look at all source (header) files, and they look nicely
> written.
> I took a cursory look at the directory structure, to verify that it follows
> boost conventions. It does so in general, but I was surprised to find a
> "libs/itl/build" folder, since I "know" that ITL is a headers only library.
> The content of the build folder also didn't make me happy (it's extremely
> "unportable"), but this is a completely different topic that has nothing to
> do with this specific library.
>

Just a little carelessness. "libs/itl/build" is a relict from the early
days. For inclusion in boost  "libs/itl/build" can be completely deleted. I
didn't know you are a software archaeologist ;-)

>
> The template meta programming in boost/itl/type_traits/* could follow MPL
> conventions more closely.
>
> Besides putting multiple type trait meta functions in one file, what
conventions did I break? Can you provide guidance?

>
> > - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
>
> The documentation is nicely written. However, please don't invent new words
> like "aggrovering" or "unon". Please also try to avoid changing the meaning
> of existing words like "neutron".
>

Sometimes I just can not resist =)

Apart from the fact that all words once have been made up, there are also
some benefits doing it: You will get relatively strong reactions:
Bewilderment, annoyance, disgust, amusement, surprise: In other words your
invention gets attention and your project will better be remembered.

Best Regards,
Joachim