Re: [boost] Boost review of the Convert library is ongoing

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost review of the Convert library is ongoing
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-14 09:24:42

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Edward Diener
> Sent: 13 May 2014 23:01
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Boost review of the Convert library is ongoing
> 
> The review of the Convert library started Monday, May 12 and goes through
> Wednesday May 21. Many people may have missed the first announcement since the
> mailing lists were held back when the review started so I am announcing this
again.
> 
> The Convert library builds on the boost::lexical_cast original design and
experience
> and takes those conversion/transformation-related ideas further.
> 
>      * to be applicable to a wider range of conversion-related use-cases,
>      * to provide a more flexible, extendible and configurable type-conversion
framework.

> Please try to sum up your review by answering these questions:
> 
>      What is your evaluation of the design?  Looks as though most users
requirements can be satisfied.

>      What is your evaluation of the implementation?   Not qualified to judge.

>      What is your evaluation of the documentation? 

 Good - but could be improved. 

* By providing the worked examples in full in a folder /example.  Examples are
the first place that many users look at - before the reference docs.  I believe
that the files exist (used to provide the code snips in the docs), or could be
easily written.

* Some use of fonts for code I thought unusual (and not an improvement ;-)

* Using Quickbook snippets system to ensure that the code in the documentation
really compiles and runs.

* Adding Doxygen comments to describe briefly the files, functions etc (so users
can find which include files may be needed?)

>      What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
Essential tool.
>      Did you try to use the library?   No - through lack of time. 
>      How much effort did you put into your evaluation?  A quick reading.
>      Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?  No

Comments:
I don't understand the timing figures given in Performance section.   Some items
refer to MSVC express 10, other detailed tables in Boost 1.55 to 11? No Clang
results?
 
>      Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?

Yes - it has been through enough iterations to 'hit the streets'  - and get
further feedback.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]