Hi boosters, so, here comes my first try at review participation.
* What is your evaluation of the design?
I think the design is sound. The static syntax is, as far as i can see, as readable as it can get using c++ operators.
* What is your evaluation of the implementation?
I did use it in a small one-off project and it performed well and worked as documented. I used both dynamic and static versions.
* What is your evaluation of the documentation?
I like the style of the documentation. It gives a good introduction and serves well as a reference. A table of primitives would be nice.
* What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I think the library is extremely useful. I used boost::regexp and boost::spirit quite a bit in the past, and very often I would have needed somethin "in between", more powerful than regexp, even easier to use than spirit. Xpressive nicely fills that gap.
* Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems?
Yes, with gcc-4.0 on linux, VC7.1 and gcc-3.3 on windows. Compile times are quite long, as with all template-heavy libraries. I like that it is header only, though.
* How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
I read the docs and used tha library in a small project. I did not do much source-code reading.
* Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I am not an expert, but a frequent user of boost::regexp and boost::spirit (and perl regexps).
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