Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Ratio
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-05 15:07:58
On 09/28/2010 12:01 AM, Anthony Williams wrote:
> Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
> - What is your evaluation of the design?
Looks sound to me.
> - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
The code looks very clean, except for a few #if 0, which I would rather
> - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
Good to read, but needs consistency checks. For instance, the link
See the source file test/ratio_test.cpp
yields something completely different than the documentation...
> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
Very useful for scientific and engineering stuff. Wish I had had such a
library at hand while studying physics...
Also required for Chrono :-)
> - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems?
As part of Chrono, yes.
gcc 4.2.4 on Ubuntu 8.04, 64bit
gcc 4.4.1 on Ubuntu 10.4 64bit
No known problems.
> - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> - reading? In-depth study?
When trying to fix warnings in Chrono (while ratio was still part of
Chrono), I spent several hours working through the code. For this
review, I looked at the header files rather briefly and read the
> - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
A little bit...
> And finally, every review should answer this question:
> - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
Thanks and regards,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk