Joel de Guzman <joel <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
On 12/24/2010 8:27 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
Eric Niebler<eric<at> boostpro.com> writes:
On 12/23/2010 1:28 PM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Thomas Heller wrote:
I guess we can schedule the review now. Hartmut, does your offer still stand?
Definitely. Let's do it asap. What about mid January?
Mid January sounds good. I guess everyone involved needs a little pressure
;)
Before it can be effectively reviewed, at least some of the new docs need to be finished. The mini-review was requested because Phoenix needed to be ported to Proto. The Phoenix grammar, intermediate form, evaluators and extension mechanism need to be documented so folks can judge how well the Proto port has been accomplished. It doesn't have to be an elaborate production, but there needs to be something.
My 02,
The docs are one of my priorities right now. They need a complete work over.
You mean the extension docs, right? The users docs should, by and large should be fine.
Yes, the user docs are fine. I want to write more about what phoenix is. That means, what is an expression, how does it get evaluated etc. This would lead naturally to the extension mechanisms there are.
But before i tackle the docs I would like to finish the BLL compatiblity tests
It would also be good to grab as much docs from BLL into Phoenix.
Good idea!
BTW, what about compile time? Have you had any success with the preprocessor idea? To be honest, my biggest concern is the compile time of V3 phoenix over V2. Compile time is already an issue with Spirit2. Now we'll be adding more on top of it.
Compile time without preprocessing is better than with phoenix2. I didn't have time yet to implement that idea. One of the main offenders wrt. preprocessing time are fusion, proto and of course phoenix itself.
Regards,