Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-24 11:06:52
On 24.08.2015 16:22, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2015 at 12:27, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>> I can remove monad<T> from all the tutorial code. Or I can include
>>> documentation of monad<T> in AFIO. Which would you prefer?
>> Niall, I think you're missing the point. Is monad<T> part of the library
>> interface? I.e. is the user allowed to use it to work with the library?
>> If the answer is yes then it's a public part of the library and should
>> be documented and reviewed. It doesn't matter if it is possible to code
>> around it. If the answer is no then why is it there in the first place?
> In hindsight the decision to use monad<T> in the tutorial examples
> was a mistake. I was trying to present a series of progressing steps
> which elegantly hanged together with respect to one another and which
> got the user used to the concept of invariance of API interface with
> respect to asynchronicity, but now I see that choice was confusing
> and nothing to do with AFIO.
I'm sorry but this didn't really answer my question.
> It would be a shame if AFIO were rejected due to that mistake in the
> tutorial, but it can't be undone for this review.
The problem is not the documentation mistake. The problem is that
Boost.AFIO depends on another library that has not been reviewed or
accepted. AFAIU, without that pre-requisite Boost.AFIO cannot be
accepted. If my understanding is correct, this review should be
cancelled (with the library being rejected as a result) and a review of
Boost.Monad should be scheduled. That's my opinion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk