Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)
From: Fletcher, John P (j.p.fletcher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-28 23:34:23
Here is my review see the answers below.
From: Boost [boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] on behalf of charleyb123 . via Boost [boost_at_[hidden]]
Sent: 18 January 2018 22:07
Cc: charleyb123 .
Subject: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)
The formal review of Niall Douglas' Outcome (v2) library begins Fri-19-Jan
and continues until Sun-28-Jan, 2018.
Please post your comments and review to the boost mailing list
(preferably), or privately to the Review Manager (to me ;-). Here are some
questions you might want to answer in your review:
- What is your evaluation of the design?
I have only looked at a limited part of the design, outcome::outcome as it is relevant to the use case which is of interest to me. The part I have looked at seems fine to me.
- What is your evaluation of the implementation?
The implementation of the ideas appears to be consistent.
- What is your evaluation of the documentation?
The documentation made available is not consistent with the Boost implementation. e.g. macro names (BOOST_OUTCOME_TRY vs OUTCOME_TRY). I beleive other people have raised this.
- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
The library is very useful for the use case I have in mind, a Boost library which makes a small use of exceptions to cope with a small number of difficult cases.
- Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any
I have run some of the examples in src/snippets and adapted them into my own examples. I have run these with Clang 4.0 and libc++ with C++14 and Boost 1.66.0. Once I had located the header and namespace this has not been a problem. I am running on Ubuntu Linux.
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
reading? In-depth study?
Not as much as I would have liked, hence the fact I have not looked at everything.
- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I have worked on functional codes for a number of years and contributed to several recent reviews.
And most importantly:
- Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
YES subject to sorting out the documentation, which other people have already mentioned.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk