Subject: Re: [boost] [Fit] formal review ends today, 13th March.
From: Manu SÃ¡nchez (manu343726_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-13 15:37:37
I have been checking both the library (I have not used Fit for eight months
or so, so I had to be sure I didn't miss anything) and the review the whole
week, but I haven't had enough time to formalize a review.
My opinion is, as others stated, that Fit is useful (function composition,
lifting, tools, etc) and has quality enough to be incorporated into Boost.
My only concern, first noticed by Louis Dionne IIRC, is that constexpr
lambda objects are not constexpr-evaluated. This may be obvious for experts
like us, but might be a source of misconception for newcomers. Until C++17
fixes this with constexpr lambdas a documentation note clarifying it should
be enough. Of course such a detail is not a reason for rejection, my
opinion is that Fit should be accepted unconditionally.
Hope it helps.
El dom., 13 de marzo de 2016 17:38, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
> Le 13/03/2016 15:24, Peter Dimov a Ã©crit :
> > Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> >> The formal review of Paul Fultz II's Fit library ends today, 13th
> >> March. If you had not time to do the review and you plan to do it,
> >> please let us know so that we see if the review can be extended.
> > I do not have time at the moment for a full review, but I would like
> > to cast my vote in favor of acceptance.
> > I looked at Fit at the time the review was announced as forthcoming (a
> > few weeks ago) and it gave me the impression of a potentially very
> > useful library that would be a worthwhile addition to Boost.
> > In my opinion, none of the changes that have been requested so far,
> > and which Paul have committed to address, require the library to be
> > rejected and re-reviewed later.
> Thanks Peter for sharing your point of view.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk