Just a reminder that the review of the polynomial lib ends on Thursday, the original announcement is below. John Maddock (review manager)
The review of Pawel Kieliszczyk's Polynomial library begins today and ends on Thurs 19th March.
Download of the zip file from the vault is here: http://www.boostpro.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filename=polynomial.zip&directory=&PHPSESSID=bbc9a84b382be1fc412254cfe30b925b
Otherwise the library is present in the sandbox here: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/SOC/2008/polynomial/
And the docs can be read online here: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/SOC/2008/polynomial/libs/docs/index....
The polynomial library contains a single class - polynomial<FieldType> - used for the manipulation of polynomials, along with a selection of algorithms which operate upon them. The library is an extension/rewrite of the existing "implementation detail" polynomial class in Boost.Math, and was written as part of last years Google Summer of Code under the mentorship of Fernando Cacciola.
What to include in Review Comments ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers.
The goal of a Boost library review is to improve the library through constructive criticism, and at the end a decision must be made: is the library good enough at this point to accept into Boost? If not, we hope to have provided enough constructive criticism for it to be improved and accepted at a later time. The Serialization library is a good example of how constructive criticism resulted in revisions resulting in an excellent library that was accepted in its second review.
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.
Many reviews include questions for library authors. Authors are interested in defending their library against your criticisms; otherwise they would not have brought their library up for review. If you don't get a response to your question quickly, be patient; if it takes too long or you don't get an answer you feel is sufficient, ask again or try to rephrase the question. Do remember that English is not the native language for many Boosters, and that can cause misunderstandings.
E-mail is a poor communication medium, and even if messages rarely get lost in transmission, they often get drowned in the deluge of other messages. Don't assume that an unanswered message means you're being ignored. Given constructively, criticism will be taken better and have more positive effects, and you'll get the answers you want.
John Maddock. Review Manager for Polynomial Library.
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1988 - Release Date: 03/06/09 19:17:00