[Boost-users] [boost][math toolkit] Formal Review today, April 11, through April 20

From: Matthias Schabel (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-11 11:54:56

The formal review of the Math Toolkit, submitted by John Maddock,  
Paul Bristow, Hubert Holin, and Xiaogang Zhang, begins today, April  
11 and ends April 20. The library and documentation may be downloaded  
from the Boost Vault:

http://www.boost-consulting.org/vault/index.php? 
&direction=0&order=&directory=Math%20-%20Numerics

The Math Toolkit is divided into three interrelated components :

1) a reasonably comprehensive set of statistical distributions
2) a set of high quality special functions
3) tools needed to implement special functions

Because this library subsumes a wide range of material, I anticipate  
that not all reviewers will feel comfortable reviewing the entirety  
of the library. In order to  expand the potential reviewer and  
increase overall participation, partial reviews of one or more of the  
three components described above are encouraged. As this is a  
primarily numerical library, quality of implementation, both  
correctness and efficiency, is critical. The authors have provided an  
extensive set of tests, but, as always, more eyes catch more bugs.  
Attention paid to these areas by reviewers is particularly welcome.

Your comments may be brief or lengthy, as long as they provide  
sufficient basis for the Review Manager to assess your evaluation of  
the library.  Relevant areas include interface/design,  
implementation, relevance to Boost, etc... If you identify problems  
along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers.

Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
        • 	What is your evaluation of the design?
        • 	What is your evaluation of the implementation?
        • 	What is your evaluation of the documentation?
        • 	What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the  library?
        • 	Did you try to use the library?  With what compiler?  Did  you  
have any problems?
        • 	How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A  
quick reading? In-depth study?
        • 	Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

And finally, every review should answer this question:
        • 	Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost  library?

Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other  comments don't  
obscure your overall opinion.

Review comments can be sent to the developer list, the user list, or  
directly to me if you don't wish to comment publicly. Thank you in  
advance for your time and work on this review.

                        Matthias Schabel
                        Review Manager

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