Subject: Re: [boost] [review][Fit] Review of Fit starts today : September 8 - September 17
From: paul (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-09-15 15:59:07
On Fri, 2017-09-15 at 10:48 +0000, Fletcher, John P via Boost wrote:
> Here is my review of the FIT library
> > Please provide in your review whatever information you think is
> > valuable to understand your final choice of ACCEPT or REJECT including
> > Fit as a Boost library. Please be explicit about your decision.
> I vote to ACCEPTÂ Â FIT as a Boost library.
Thanks, for the review.
> > Some other questions you might want to consider answering:
> > Â - What is your evaluation of the design?
> > Â - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> I have found both the design and the implementation to be consistent and
> well carried through.
> There are a few things which are in the detail which are in fact of use to
> users and it would be helpful it they were available in the fit namespace.
> See notes below.
> > Â - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> The general standard of the reference documentation is good.
> It would help to have some more examples.
What kind of more examples would you like to see?
> There are some things which are not documented such as alias and the
> configuration.Â Â Also move and forward which are in detail although useful to
> Â - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
> I think this is a very useful library.Â Â I have explored this by building an
> example use - see notes below.
> Â - Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you
> Â Â Â Â have any problems?
> Yes, I have built examples to run everything I can find in the library.Â Â I
> did this with the version available in February this year and have moved the
> examples over to the Boost version with the necessary changes to namespace
> and boostification of the macros.Â Â All worked after I found the name changes
> to compress/reverse compress to fold/reverse_fold.Â Â I see that this is a
> response to previous discussion and I agree with the changes.
> Â - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> Â Â Â Â reading? In-depth study?
> I have been working with FIT for some time and building the examples.Â Â I
> have mainly used various versions of clang and libc++, also using various
> versions of gcc.
> I have discovered that not all of the compiler configuration is carried out
> in fit/configure.hpp.Â Â The following headers also detect the compiler being
> used:Â Â alias, always, implicit, pack, reveal, unpack.
Some of those is because there is no specific compiler feature it is working
around. Although in a few places I could use another config.
> I have built examples of all of the code I can find, including for alias
> where there is no documentation and only test examples for some of the
> things in the header.Â Â It is used in pack and combine and may have been
> intended to be internal although it can be used externally.
It is intended to be used externally, which is why there is an initial
documentation, and it is not in the detail namespace. Many didn't see how it
is related to this library, plus it was missing a useful example. So for now,
I just took it out of the TOC, but would like to add it back, but need a good
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk