Hi, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes@acm.org> To: "Boost Developers List" <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 3:03 AM Subject: [boost] [ratio] Mini-review of the proposed ratio library
The review of Vicente Botet' Ratio library starts October 2nd and lasts until October 11th, 2010, unless an extension occurs. - What is your evaluation of the design?
The question is essentially moot since Vicente followed the C++0x standard library design. The real question is "Does Boost need a library that every standard library vendor will be supplying anyhow?"
For me, the answer is, yes, at least provisionally. The provisional part is because the library I'd really like to see in Boost in chrono.
But we can't have <boost/chrono.hpp> without <boost/ratio.hpp>, so I'm in favor of ratio.
The reason I'd like a Boost version is that I don't want to have to wait years and years to be able to use <boost/chrono.hpp> and <boost/ratio.hpp> in Boost libraries. I want to be able to use them with the compilers and standard libraries people are using today, not years from now.
Yes, this is the main goal: To provide a "portable" version for C++03 and C++0x compilers so we can add on top of these standard libraries more on Boost.
- What is your evaluation of the implementation?
I am familiar with the original source code, and worked on boostifying it. Vicente has done a lot of work to make the code more robust in the Boost environment.
:)
- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
Chrono needs it:-)
I will add that Boost.Units could be refactored to use boost::ratio.
And finally, every review should answer this question:
- Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
Yes.
I'm hoping others will post more in depth reviews. My review is really just a mini-review, but maybe will help to keep the ball rolling.
Thanks for your possitive mini-review, Vicente