Re: [boost] Mini review of the Fit library

Subject: Re: [boost] Mini review of the Fit library
From: paul (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-09-21 14:18:41

On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 07:52 -0400, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
> What follows is my mini review of the Fit library. I had no time to write a
> full
> review, but feel that most of my points have been covered by others in both
> the
> first and this second review.
> 
> A. Should the library be accepted into Boost?
> 
> Yes; I vote to accept Fit - with no conditions for acceptance.

Thanks for the review.

> 
> B. What is your evaluation of the design?
> 
> I found it:
> 1. Practical: For facilities like BOOST_FIT_LIFT.
> 2. Innovative: For facilities like infix().
> 
> And overall useful.
> 
> C. What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> 
> Good. Appears to be correct C++ code, and is definitely written in a very
> maintainable way.
> 
> Ordinarily I'm in favor of not seeing macros used for what is accomplished
> by
> FIT_INHERIT_DEFAULT, FIT_INHERIT_CONSTRUCTOR, and similar, but this is a
> minor
> thing, and it does serve to make the code smaller and easier to review.
> 
> I also like that the lowest version of C++ standard support required is
> C++11
> (and not higher), as I am still aware of a large enough pre-C++14 user base
> that
> do have access to and use Boost libraries.

True, a lot of places maybe even using the latest clang, but still use the
-std=c++11 flag. Â 

> 
> D. What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> 
> Excellent. Better than what I generally write. Useful enough for me, and in
> my
> opinion, sufficient for understanding the library and learning how to use it
> -
> for any user that takes the time to read through it all.
> 
> E. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
> 
> I believe it to be useful, and I know of at one developer that I have
> suggested
> Fit to, that has started using it - and another that would like to start
> using
> it if it is included in a Boost release (for which their organization has
> blanket approval to use).
> 
> F. Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)?
> Â Â Â Did you have any problems?
> 
> Not recently, but Yes. With g++ 6.3. I encountered no problems.
> 
> G. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> reading?
> Â Â Â In-depth study?
> 
> I had spent at least 3+ hours looking into Fit with the intention of
> reviewing
> it for my own use, and learning how one part of it was implemented. I did
> not
> have a chance to spend as much time as I would normally have to write a full
> review of the library.
> 
> H. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
> 
> Familiar with enough functional programming design and generic programming
> to
> appreciate the library.
> 
> Other notes:
> 
> No concern about the name. We have Beast, Hana, Spirit; Fit is a fine enough
> name, and boost::fit:: is a convenient enough prefix.
> 
> Glen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boo
> st

.