Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review][Fit] Review of Fit starts today : September 8 - September 17
From: Louis Dionne (ldionne.2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-09-22 00:55:00

I apologize for submitting my review late. For some reason, I thought the
extension was until the 22nd.

> 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 ACCEPT Fit unconditionally.

> Some other questions you might want to consider answering:
> - What is your evaluation of the design?

Good, just like in the first review.

> - What is your evaluation of the implementation?

Good. The implementation can sometimes be obscure because of support for
older compilers, but it's probably worth it.

> - What is your evaluation of the documentation?

Really great. In fact, I think Paul's system for documentation with and markdown slurped from his source files is awesome,
and I'm looking forward to using it in some of my projects.

> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?

I think it's only useful in a handful of cases (the rest of the time you
can usually use lambdas). However, when you need it, you really don't want
to reimplement it yourself, so it has its utility.

> - Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you
> have any problems?

Haven't tried since the last review.

> - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> reading? In-depth study?

I had put significant effort in my initial review, but did not have time
to do much besides skim the documentation and the issue list this time

> - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

Very; Hana has a 'Functional' module that implements many, but not all,
of the things in Fit. I was looking forward to Fit being accepted in Boost
so I could consider dropping support for this part of Hana, which does
not really belong to Hana.

> - Were the concerns from the March 2016 review of Fit addressed?

Hard to tell because no official report was given for the first review, but
it seems like pretty much all the issues that I cared about have been taken
care of, since the associated GitHub issues have been closed:

This is mostly what my vote is based on; I had only a few reservations about
this library the first time around, and they have now been resolved.

Thanks Paul for this nice library, and to Matt for managing the review.


Sent from:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at