| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of tom brinkman | Sent: 21 August 2004 15:09 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: [boost] Review of Daryle Walker's "More IO" library | What is your evaluation of the design? No obvious problems that I am qualified to judge. | What is your evaluation of the implementation? No obvious problems that I am qualified to judge. | What is your evaluation of the documentation? Formal documentation and testing look satisfactory - at a glance. But the documentation won't sell it to the users - they MUST have tutorials and EXAMPLES, even if many of uses appear trivially simple to the cognescenti. I'd like to see these as a condition of final acceptance. | What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? Useful (some very useful), but filtering elements are potentially even more valuable. None that are bad idea - though some more useful than others - subjective? | Did you try to use the library? No, but I have used parts previously. | How much effort did you put into your evaluation? Minor - a quick re-reading. | Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Not very - but as a user I feel the need for many items. | Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Yes, but it must work with Jonathan Turkanis's forthcoming further IO contribution. Paul PS In the collection of questions to be answered in reviews, I feel we could usefully separately assess the TESTING from the docs. There is also often a need for both a formal description, and for user friendly tutorial and examples. I feel we should be assessing ALL these elements separately. For many Boost authors, it is not worth producing some of these items unless one is confident of ultimate acceptance. Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com