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, it should be accepted.

What is your evaluation of the design?

Convincing. I like the simple user interface most. What I dislike is the upper case spelling of the macro, because it is so much keyword like. However, I'm unsure what counts more: the upper case spelling rule for macros or the wish to have a foreach keyword undistinguishable from the other C++ keywords. So this is actually no point at all.

What is your evaluation of the implementation?

It is amazing what can be done with C++. However, I'm not qualified to make any comments about the implementation.

What is your evaluation of the documentation?

It is short and to the point. What I'm missing is an example for using BOOST_FOREACH with the std::map container. As Michael Toksvig already said, the documentation should mention as many pitfalls as possible.

What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?

This is a very useful library. It is unfortunate that there isn't a build in keyword 'foreach' in the C++ language. If the library is going into boost I will starting to use it for my daily work.

Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems?

Yes, with MinGW (gcc 3.4.2). I did not have any problems.

How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?

I tried some examples (std::list, std::deque, std::set, std::map, int[]) with no problems. I read the documentation and looked into the powerpoint presentation. However, I did not study the source code (foreach.hpp) in-depth.

Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

Yes, form the user's point of view. With best regards Johannes Brunen ____________ Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirusKit Version: AVK 15.0.4483 from 26.04.2005 Virus news: www.antiviruslab.com