From: Jody Hagins (jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-19 19:41:12
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:53:32 +0100
"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> What is your evaluation of the design?
It seems fairly representative of current meta template programming
techniques. I still have concerns about the tag-types bastraction.
However, I also see the advantages. Maybe BOTH style interfaces should
be provided, even though it is largely redundant. Normally redundant
interfaces are a bad thing, but I'm on the fence here...
I like the similarities with TypeTraits, and I sample usage has been
pretty easy (once I got past my initial problems).
> What is your evaluation of the implementation?
N/A.
> What is your evaluation of the documentation?
As obvious from my previous comments in this thread, the documentation
need a lot of work. In addition, I think a single example, developed
throught the documentation would be helpful. A modified version
includes better examples, but the examples need to be fully explained
with lots of textual explanation (more than currently exists).
> What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I think it can be very useful, bth for unifying the implementations of
several Boost libraries and also as a good generic programming tool.
> Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any
>
> problems?
Yes. gcc 3.2, 3.2.2. I ran into some compiler warnings, but I found
that they were due to an existing bug in the gcc 3.2 compiler.
> How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> reading? In-depth study?
My initial reading of the documentation was fairly quick, but I then
spent some time re-reading it, and a fair amount of time in a discussion
with the author. I compiled the examples and ran the tests. In
addition, I tried to write some other code to use the interface, but ran
out of time, and never got it working.
> Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Somewhat, but not near as much as some others on this list.
> 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.
Yes, though I would regret that vote if the documentation and examples
were not given a thorough re-working, taking into account all the
current feedback (and applying that feedback, pretty much all of which
would make the documentation much better, and the library more useful).