Robert Jones wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Daniel Walker wrote: <snip>
To echo David - wow, that was some review from Daniel!
In response to Joel - Some of your purpose in requesting a review now is certainly being served for me. The discussion provoked is proving hugely useful and informative, not least because the history of Phoenix apparently goes back a long way, and certainly far beyond the point when I started paying attention.
So, as a user who is moderately familiar with BLL, but very new to Phoenix, it would seem there is very little merit in investing too much effort becoming familiar with Phoenix, until V3 arrives. A logic that presumably applies to any new user.
I would urge you otherwise. I did a quick scan of the Phoenix2 docs. I can safely say that the majority of the interface will remain as-is. Most of the changes will be transparent for the user (for instance the use of boost.typeof and boost.result_of will not affect most code). Neither will the use of a common set of placeholders. There are only two parts in the docs where there will be changes to the interface: the Phoenix function and some parts of the extension mechanism. The first is cosmetic. Really, such interface changes are a normal part of transitioning from pre-review to post-review. All libraries assimilated into boost experience the same transition phase. Some more significant. Take Proto for example, which went from V1 to V2 to V3 from pre to post review. While I understand and appreciate the comments raised thus far, I say that the review grossly magnifies these aspects while underrating the remaining 95% of the library. If you look at: http://tinyurl.com/4y47z7, Values, References, Arguments, Composites, Lazy Operators, Lazy Statements Construct, New, Delete, Casts, Operator, Statement, Object, Scope, Bind will remain as-is. Only Lazy Functions and Inside Phoenix (the extension mechanism) will have some changes. Please, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
As a result of reading Daniel's review my appreciation of the overall 'roadmap' has increased significantly.
And, let me emphasize it too, if I haven't done so yet. The Roadmap is very important. I certainly hope for more discussion on these topics. Bridging the current and past and the future is one of the prime motivations behind my asking for a review.
Daniel's review also mentioned a 'chatty', scene setting introductory chapter that used to part of the documentation. I too would like to this restored to the documentation.
If you want a chatty scene, I'll give you a chatty scene, but not too much :-). Actually, there's one more facet of the documentation that's missing: a reference section. I also intend to have one for V3. At least for those who dislike verbose text can get straight to the reference. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net