Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (ends Sun-28-May)
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-25 22:51:29
Any chance to extend the review period. I intend to write a review. But it
is really time consuming. And all the discussions, fruitful as they are,
distract me from the task.
2017-05-26 0:43 GMT+02:00 charleyb123 . via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
> Hi, Everyone,
> 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.
> Thus far:
> (a)- some 300+ emails discussing Outcome (and more emails off-list)
> (b)- participation from:
> *- Andrzej Krzemienski
> *- D25fe0be
> *- 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.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk