Zach Laine wrote:
On 8/12/07, Eric Niebler <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
The docs have a ways to go to make this clear, I agree. But now that its clear and your suggestion is withdrawn, is your objection to the time series library also withdrawn?
I guess my vote is now a provisional yes.
Woo-hoo! :-)
I like the library overall, but there are too many details that appear not to be solidified for me to vote yes without seeing them addressed:
OK.
The issues Steven has raised wrt the use of commit(). If there really are no efficiency gains from the commit() technique, it is unidiomatic enough that I think it should go away.
Have you followed recent messages in that thread? I was able to explain the rationale for the inserters in a way that made sense to Steven. This is the key message: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/08/125963.php
The documentation is pretty far enough from where I think it should be. I used xpressive for the first time over the weekend, so I now know you know how to write great docs. :)
Thanks!
The rolling-window algorithm should be added.
Consider it done.
I'm still hazy on whether adding data to the high end and dropping data off the low end is a reasonable and efficient usage of a series, or, if not, whether there are methods users can employ to efficiently process series that are too large to keep in memory all at once. If this is easy to do with the library, I think it's important enough as a use case that it deserves its own example.
I think there should be an example of a "single-pass" time series. (This would be like an istream_iterator, but it could be modeled by a time series that memory maps segments from a huge file, for instance.) Then, I can show how such a series can be used with the rolling average algorithm (which internally uses a circular buffer).
coarse_grain() and fine_grain() need to be customizable. I would still like to see a int/floating point mapping from sample space to index space for dense_series<> that you alluded to in a previous email.
Are you referring to an interpolating facade? Yes, that is a must have.
So, with the understanding that these issues will be addressed post-review, I vote yes. I leave it up to the review manager to determine whether this volume of provisions means that my vote should count as "yes, but please address this", or "no, it needs another pass."
These are all on the ToDo list, or are already done. Thanks for all your feedback. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com