Re: Zach Laine CharConv review

From: Christopher Kormanyos (e_float_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-01-24 19:14:03

   > On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 08:01:32 PM GMT+1, Zach Laine via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:  > 
> - What is your evaluation of the design?> 
> It follows the design of the equivalent facility in std::, so this
> feels moot.  No complaints with that part.  My only complaint is that
> the semantics of boost::charconv::from_chars  and
> boost::charconv::from_chars_strict seem backward to me.  I know this
> was mentioned by other reviewers.  I think that with near-identity to
> the standard version, having the same (or corresponding name within
> boost::) should imply the same semantics.  This is classic adherence
> to The Principle of Least Surprise.  I would much prefer that the
> varying version have the different name, and that the one with the
> standard's semantics should be from_chars.  I also encourage the
> authors to track any changes to std::from_chars with
> boost::charconv::from_chars.
> 
> - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> 
> I mean, there's a lot of it.  I'm sure it's all necessary, but I only
> looked at about 10% of it.  What I saw seemed reasonable and well
> organized.
> 
> - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> 
> It's great.  The library is smallish, and the docs are correspondingly
> bite-sized, with plenty of examples.  I might add a little more front
> matter that explains why someone should use this library.  The docs
> get there, but putting it in the first paragraph is better.  Busy
> people will blow right past everything that isn't in the first
> paragraph or two.
> 
> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness
> of the library?
> 
> High.  I think the fact that this is a C++17 feature that we still
> can't reliably use says it all.  The fact that it's about the same as
> the std:: implementation, or sometimes a little faster, is even
> better.
> 
> - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did
> you have any problems?
> 
> Yes.  I tried it with GCC 12, in a small test program just to see it
> go.  No issues.
> 
> - How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
> A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
> 
> I spent about 3 hours, mostly looking at code.  I also read all the
> docs and gave it a quick try.
> 
> - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
> 
> Not particularly.  I have written lots and lots of parsers, but never
> a simple low-level one like those in charconv.
> 
> Zach
Thank you Zach for your clear, terse review.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost