Subject: Re: [boost] [review][Fit] Review of Fit starts today : September 8 - September 17
From: P F (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-09-18 01:08:35
> On Sep 17, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for the review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk