Hi Thomas, thank you again for reviewing my library! 2010/2/28 Thomas Klimpel <Thomas.Klimpel@synopsys.com>
- What is your evaluation of the implementation?
I took a cursory look at all source (header) files, and they look nicely written. I took a cursory look at the directory structure, to verify that it follows boost conventions. It does so in general, but I was surprised to find a "libs/itl/build" folder, since I "know" that ITL is a headers only library. The content of the build folder also didn't make me happy (it's extremely "unportable"), but this is a completely different topic that has nothing to do with this specific library.
Just a little carelessness. "libs/itl/build" is a relict from the early days. For inclusion in boost "libs/itl/build" can be completely deleted. I didn't know you are a software archaeologist ;-)
The template meta programming in boost/itl/type_traits/* could follow MPL conventions more closely.
Besides putting multiple type trait meta functions in one file, what
conventions did I break? Can you provide guidance?
- What is your evaluation of the documentation?
The documentation is nicely written. However, please don't invent new words like "aggrovering" or "unon". Please also try to avoid changing the meaning of existing words like "neutron".
Sometimes I just can not resist =) Apart from the fact that all words once have been made up, there are also some benefits doing it: You will get relatively strong reactions: Bewilderment, annoyance, disgust, amusement, surprise: In other words your invention gets attention and your project will better be remembered. Best Regards, Joachim