Re: [boost] [review][Fit] Review of Fit starts today : September 8 - September 17

Subject: Re: [boost] [review][Fit] Review of Fit starts today : September 8 - September 17
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-09-17 23:21:33

On 9/8/17 4:02 AM, Matt Calabrese via Boost wrote:

> 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 recommend that the review manager accept this library into boost 
without conditions.

> Some other questions you might want to consider answering:
> 
>    - What is your evaluation of the designGood -
>    - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
I didn't look into it.
>    - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
Much better than average.  Basically quite usable.
The Getting Started was very helpful to me.
>    - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
It took me a while to see this, but I realize that I could see this 
right now.
>    - Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you
>      have any problems?
I didn't try it
>    - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
>      reading? In-depth study?
Two hours of poking through the documentation in the context of some 
current issues I'm dealing with.
>    - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Compared to whom?  Actually I don't consider myself particularly 
knowledgeable.  I did spend a fair amount of time looking at 
boost.functional, boost.call_traits and cpp_reference functional, and 
some C++17 constructs like is_invocable, etc.  After I did all that the 
purpose, utility and usage seemed pretty straight forward.
>    - Were the concerns from the March 2016 review of Fit addressed?
I didn't do a review in March 2016.

Robert Ramey