Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Chrono Library LAST DAY TODAY

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Chrono Library LAST DAY TODAY
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-15 11:06:07

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Anthony Williams
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 3:04 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] [Review] Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Chrono Library

> Boost.Chrono aims to implement the new time facilities in C++0x, as
proposed in
> N2661 - A Foundation to Sleep On (http://www.open-
> std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2661.htm).
 
> - What is your evaluation of the design?
Seems carefully considered over some time. 

Seems suitably open-ended with many possible time units and clocks -
No one clock suits all requirements, so wisely includes user clocks,
    eBay clock, my_own_dodgy_clock, ...

Needs to provide examples showing how to use IO output (input?) Hr, Min, sec
in languages *other than English*.
I'm not sure the mechanism provided will work in practice?
Especially if using locales and expecting it to work with them?
This is such a basic need, that leaving it to the users to reinvent
repeatedly seems unhelpful.

More examples are always helpful.  I didn't find all the ones referenced,
but this may be a filing problem using sandbox.

Did I miss examples of actually using Chrono with Boost.Units library?

> - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
Not considered.
> - What is your evaluation of the documentation?

Good - a few typos (sent separately).  I would have used Doxygen reference
to reduce future maintenance of docs.

I'd like it *with Doxygen comments in the code*:  without this, reference
docs can be hard to digest.
And as a user (including of my own code!), I also find it very useful to
have a standalone Doxygen.
Again the  *with Doxygen comments in the code* makes it much more useful.
Adding Doxygen comments in the code is easiest when writing the code, but
perhaps a volunteer could add afterwards?

> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?

Invaluable.
> - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any
problems?
Using MSVC 10 but without Boost.System library as included. 
Puzzling compile problem that I didn't have time to investigate.

> - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance?

 A quick reading.

> - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Not yet - haven't had time ;-)

> And finally, every review should answer this question:
>
> - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?

Yes.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]