Subject: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (ends Sun-28-May)
From: charleyb123 . (charleyb123_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-25 22:43:58
First a (very-)big "thank-you!" to all participating in the ongoing (and
vigorous) debate and review for the Outcome library. The spirited
discussion touches on tricky issues for composition and error handling
(with and without C++ exceptions enabled), where the community is clearly
searching for best convention and common ground.
(a)- some 300+ emails discussing Outcome (and more emails off-list)
(b)- participation from:
*- Andrzej Krzemienski
*- Deniz Bahadir
*- Emil Dotchevski
*- Gavin Lambert
*- Glen Fernandes
*- Gottlob Frege (Tony)
*- Hartmut Kaiser
*- Ion Gaztanaga
*- Jonathan Muller
*- Niall Douglas
*- Paul Bristow
*- Pete Bartlett
*- Peter Dimov
*- Robert Ramey
*- Thomas Heller
*- Vicente J. Botet Escriba
*- Vinnie Falco
*- ...(apologies if I've missed anyone)
(c)- Some points-of-discussion relate to:
*- Outcome efficiency (copy/move) on todayâs compilers
*- Outcome speed/overhead (exceptions)
*- Outcome purpose/motivation
*- Outcome Tutorials, documentation
*- Outcome âformal-empty-stateâ, default-initialization
*- Outcome compiling, compiler support
*- Outcome ABI, namespace usage, use of preprocessor
*- Outcome alternative APIs
*- std::expected proposal, possible changes
(d)- Reviews to date (sent publicly to the list):
*- Paul Bristow -- accept, conditional (Tue-23-May)
*- Deniz Bahadir -- accept, unconditional (Wed-24-May)
*- Thomas Heller -- (almost a review), ?reject, "not-ready-yet?"
(e)- Significant other discussion also contributes to evaluation of
Outcome as a Boost library. However, I encourage further reviews to make
clear any conclusions from these discussions that I might have missed.
The review continues for several more days, ending Sun-28-May. Please
consider posting a review to the boost mailing list, or privately to the
Review Manager (to me). Here are some questions you might want to answer
in your review:
- What is your evaluation of the design?
- What is your evaluation of the implementation?
- What is your evaluation of the documentation?
- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
- Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
reading? In-depth study?
- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
And most importantly:
- Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
For more information about Boost Formal Review Process, see:
Thank you very much for your time and efforts.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk