On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 07:52 -0400, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
What follows is my mini review of the Fit library. I had no time to write a full review, but feel that most of my points have been covered by others in both the first and this second review.
A. Should the library be accepted into Boost?
Yes; I vote to accept Fit - with no conditions for acceptance.
Thanks for the review.
B. What is your evaluation of the design?
I found it: 1. Practical: For facilities like BOOST_FIT_LIFT. 2. Innovative: For facilities like infix().
And overall useful.
C. What is your evaluation of the implementation?
Good. Appears to be correct C++ code, and is definitely written in a very maintainable way.
Ordinarily I'm in favor of not seeing macros used for what is accomplished by FIT_INHERIT_DEFAULT, FIT_INHERIT_CONSTRUCTOR, and similar, but this is a minor thing, and it does serve to make the code smaller and easier to review.
I also like that the lowest version of C++ standard support required is C++11 (and not higher), as I am still aware of a large enough pre-C++14 user base that do have access to and use Boost libraries.
True, a lot of places maybe even using the latest clang, but still use the -std=c++11 flag.
D. What is your evaluation of the documentation?
Excellent. Better than what I generally write. Useful enough for me, and in my opinion, sufficient for understanding the library and learning how to use it - for any user that takes the time to read through it all.
E. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I believe it to be useful, and I know of at one developer that I have suggested Fit to, that has started using it - and another that would like to start using it if it is included in a Boost release (for which their organization has blanket approval to use).
F. Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you have any problems?
Not recently, but Yes. With g++ 6.3. I encountered no problems.
G. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
I had spent at least 3+ hours looking into Fit with the intention of reviewing it for my own use, and learning how one part of it was implemented. I did not have a chance to spend as much time as I would normally have to write a full review of the library.
H. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Familiar with enough functional programming design and generic programming to appreciate the library.
Other notes:
No concern about the name. We have Beast, Hana, Spirit; Fit is a fine enough name, and boost::fit:: is a convenient enough prefix.
Glen
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boo st
.