This is my review of the Metaparse library: The original metaparse library was represented as a library within mpllibs in the old Boost directory structure. The documentation of this library was entirely a tutorial of the library. The tutorial was a very good general explanation of how to use the library. As such it showed the potential of the library and that the author of the library gave a great amount of thought to how the library should be used. I would rate the tutorial itself as excellent. But a tutorial by itself is inadequate as documentation to a Boost library. Documentation needs a reference of all the classes, functions, data, macros of the library whether it is a library of meatfunctions or a library of run-time constructs. Furthermore some explanation of how the different parts of the library are organized and meant to be used within that organization is needed in documentation is necessary for me to understand a software library. So while I would rate the tutorial as excellent the documentation was inadequate. Sometime during the review process the presentation of what was being reviewed completely changed. A new version of the library was presented using the current Boost directory structure, with a very full documentation set and the link to the tutorial documentation in the original version being reviewed was removed. I am no doubt a bit stodgier than most programmers but this is not acceptable during a Boost review process. I believe the rule that what one reviews must remain absolutely unchanged during the period of a review has to be enforced. Changing everything during the review process, as has been done with this library, causes havoc and confusion for reviewers. So while I welcome the need for such a library, have recognized the high quality of the library, and feel that the library would be extremely useful for Boost library developers among others in adding a well thought out parsing framework to the tools a template metaprogrammer would have in designing his own library my vote, given the irregularity of how this library was originally presented to Boost I vote NO for acceptance of this library into Boost. While I realize that it may be seen as a PITA for the developer and review manager I would love to see another review of this library with the actual library being reviewed not changing under me and being either what was secondarily presented as the library or as an improvement of what was secondarily presented as the library. Personally, and without any animosity whatsoever to the library developer or the review manager, I don't think this review can be considered a valid one given what has happened during the review. But it is not my call to decide on this and I can only vote based on my annoyance that this has happened.