Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-24 12:21:54

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 24.08.2015 16:22, Niall Douglas wrote:
> > 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.

I have to say that I find this choice of naming baffling. Why would you name 
a concrete type 'monad'? Makes no sense to me. Would not something like 
afio::result been better? In this way this is clearly a part of AFIO and no 
separate review would be necessary.

If one insists on calling a type boost::monad, this is a serious claim over 
quite a territory and I agree with Andrey that this calls for a review of 
Boost.Monad.