Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (ends Sun-28-May)

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (ends Sun-28-May)
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-25 22:51:29

Charley,
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.

Regards,
&rzej;

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 today’s compilers
>       *- Outcome speed/overhead (exceptions)
>       *- Outcome purpose/motivation
>       *- Outcome Tutorials, documentation
>       *- Outcome “formal-empty-state”, 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?"
> (Wed-24-May)
>
>   (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
> problems?
>
> - 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:
> http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html
>
> Thank you very much for your time and efforts.
>
> --charley
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/
> mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost