Hi Phil, Thanks for your review. Let me clarify a few points: Phil Endecott wrote:
- The library doesn't seem to be in namespace boost. I guess the intention is to add this later. This is unusual. - I got a page full of warnings from my test program; the cause seemed to be unused parameters in within.hpp, lines 118 and 178. Since I have touched only a small fraction of the library, I imagine there are other places with the same issue. As I said, these are minor issues that I imagine could be corrected quickly. However they did give me the impression that the library is still very much a work-in-progress - especially the documentation - rather than a fully-formed finished work. I don't necessarily believe that a library has to be perfect before it can be accepted into Boost, but I think it needs to be a little less rough around the edges than this. At this time, the library is let down by incomplete documentation, and I feel it should be rejected for that.
Our library is used by people. We have a mailing list, a wiki and there is a user base. Therefore: - it is not in namespace boost. The preparation of Formal Review took several months. We cannot surprise our users with adding namespace boost, and after rejection removing it. Besides that, I've asked this on the list because I didn't feel comfortable publishing a library with namespace boost, while not being accepted. Dave Abrahams answered: "Thank you very much for being so responsible." and about using before acceptance: "However, I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging that practice." - this is also the case for macro definitions, we didn't want to start with BOOST for them. - and this is actually also part of the issue of documentation: You are right, the documentation is not perfect, not everything is there yet. It might seem rough but behind the screens many effort is put in it. Iff we are accepted, we want to move to BoostBooks. If not, we will (probably) select something else, e.g. a Wiki. Because the library is large, we could not do this before review and take the risk to move after rejection to something else. We know that Doxygen is not perfect. What IS perfect in Doxygen is the integration between small code samples and documentation. All the samples you see do really compile. They are extracted automatically from sample-sources (included in the distribution). We want to keep this feature so on selecting another doc system we have to inventorize the possibilities (tips welcome). Regards, Barend