Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Ratio

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 
have removed.
> - 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 
documentation.
> - 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?
>    

Yes.

Thanks and regards,

Roland