* What is your evaluation of the design? It looks very well designed and I especially find the flexibility of the policy mechanism to be very well done. * What is your evaluation of the implementation? I haven't looked at much code, so I have no opinion here. * What is your evaluation of the documentation? I found the documentation to be comprehensive and with good flow. * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? In my programming career I haven't encountered a use case for this library. That isn't to say it wouldn't be useful in other domains. * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? Nope, didn't try it. * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? I did an in depth study of the documentation only. * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? I wasn't before I read the documentation, but I feel knowledgeable now after going through it. * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure your overall opinion. Yes, I do. My preference on the equality mechanism would be to make it a configuration option via a template parameter during construction with the default being (fw1.get()==fw1.get()) instead of (&(fw1.get())==&(fw1.get()). The benefit would be that those who would understand when this would fail could enable the quicker behavior while those who don't understand could remain in blissful ignorance. I prefer the original configuration mechanism. I think that it, combined with the very good documentation, is good enough and further extensions would complicate things further. David -- David Sankel Sankel Software www.sankelsoftware.com 585 617 4748 (Office) 585 309 2016 (Mobile)