Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May 25th and ends June 7th
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-02 14:05:25
This is my review of the Metaparse library:
The original metaparse library was represented as a library within
mpllibs in the old Boost directory structure. The documentation of this
library was entirely a tutorial of the library.
The tutorial was a very good general explanation of how to use the
library. As such it showed the potential of the library and that the
author of the library gave a great amount of thought to how the library
should be used. I would rate the tutorial itself as excellent.
But a tutorial by itself is inadequate as documentation to a Boost
library. Documentation needs a reference of all the classes, functions,
data, macros of the library whether it is a library of meatfunctions or
a library of run-time constructs. Furthermore some explanation of how
the different parts of the library are organized and meant to be used
within that organization is needed in documentation is necessary for me
to understand a software library. So while I would rate the tutorial as
excellent the documentation was inadequate.
Sometime during the review process the presentation of what was being
reviewed completely changed. A new version of the library was presented
using the current Boost directory structure, with a very full
documentation set and the link to the tutorial documentation in the
original version being reviewed was removed.
I am no doubt a bit stodgier than most programmers but this is not
acceptable during a Boost review process. I believe the rule that what
one reviews must remain absolutely unchanged during the period of a
review has to be enforced. Changing everything during the review
process, as has been done with this library, causes havoc and confusion
So while I welcome the need for such a library, have recognized the high
quality of the library, and feel that the library would be extremely
useful for Boost library developers among others in adding a well
thought out parsing framework to the tools a template metaprogrammer
would have in designing his own library my vote, given the irregularity
of how this library was originally presented to Boost I vote NO for
acceptance of this library into Boost.
While I realize that it may be seen as a PITA for the developer and
review manager I would love to see another review of this library with
the actual library being reviewed not changing under me and being either
what was secondarily presented as the library or as an improvement of
what was secondarily presented as the library. Personally, and without
any animosity whatsoever to the library developer or the review manager,
I don't think this review can be considered a valid one given what has
happened during the review. But it is not my call to decide on this and
I can only vote based on my annoyance that this has happened.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk