Rather than repeating myself too much here I refer the review manager to my two previous posts where I implemented a couple of simple problems using this library. My initial expectation was that I would find the library useful for these problems, but it became clear that the resulting code was no better than an ad-hoc implementation without the use of the library. I was hoping that in the time since then the author or some other reviewer would produce an example that would convince me that there are classes of problems where this library is useful, but no such example has appeared.
What is your evaluation of the design?
The main mode of use of this library doesn't seem to offer enough beyond what's possible with a more ad-hoc implementation style to be worthwhile. I note that it also has a more declarative mode (with a state transition table) which I did not evaluate properly.
What is your evaluation of the implementation?
I have not evaluated the implementation.
What is your evaluation of the documentation?
It is sufficient.
What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I have not been convinced that this library is useful.
Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems?
I did not try to compile any of my code.
How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
A few hours.
Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Not especially. Actually in a previous life I knew a lot about implementing and optimising FSMs in hardware, but that doesn't really have a lot to do with most software implementations.
And, finally, every review should answer this question: Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
No, not unless some convincing examples of applications where it is useful can be produced. Regards, Phil.