Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (ends Sun-28-May)

25 May 2017


      Charley,
Any chance to extend the review period. I intend to write a review. But it
is really time consuming. And all the discussions, fruitful as they are,
distract me from the task.

Regards,
&rzej;

2017-05-26 0:43 GMT+02:00 charleyb123 . via Boost :
...
Hi, Everyone,
First a (very-)big "thank-you!" to all participating in the ongoing (and
vigorous) debate and review for the Outcome library.  The spirited
discussion touches on tricky issues for composition and error handling
(with and without C++ exceptions enabled), where the community is clearly
searching for best convention and common ground.
Thus far:
(a)- some 300+ emails discussing Outcome (and more emails off-list)
(b)- participation from:
*- Andrzej Krzemienski
      *- D25fe0be
      *- Deniz Bahadir
      *- Emil Dotchevski
      *- Gavin Lambert
      *- Glen Fernandes
      *- Gottlob Frege (Tony)
      *- Hartmut Kaiser
      *- Ion Gaztanaga
      *- Jonathan Muller
      *- Niall Douglas
      *- Paul Bristow
      *- Pete Bartlett
      *- Peter Dimov
      *- Robert Ramey
      *- Thomas Heller
      *- Vicente J. Botet Escriba
      *- Vinnie Falco
      *- ...(apologies if I've missed anyone)
(c)- Some points-of-discussion relate to:
*- Outcome efficiency (copy/move) on today’s compilers
      *- Outcome speed/overhead (exceptions)
      *- Outcome purpose/motivation
      *- Outcome Tutorials, documentation
      *- Outcome “formal-empty-state”, default-initialization
      *- Outcome compiling, compiler support
      *- Outcome ABI, namespace usage, use of preprocessor
      *- Outcome alternative APIs
      *- std::expected proposal, possible changes
(d)- Reviews to date (sent publicly to the list):
*- Paul Bristow -- accept, conditional (Tue-23-May)
      *- Deniz Bahadir -- accept, unconditional (Wed-24-May)
      *- Thomas Heller -- (almost a review), ?reject, "not-ready-yet?"
(Wed-24-May)
(e)- Significant other discussion also contributes to evaluation of
Outcome as a Boost library.  However, I encourage further reviews to make
clear any conclusions from these discussions that I might have missed.
The review continues for several more days, ending Sun-28-May.  Please
consider posting a review to the boost mailing list, or privately to the
Review Manager (to me).  Here are some questions you might want to answer
in your review:
- What is your evaluation of the design?
- What is your evaluation of the implementation?
- What is your evaluation of the documentation?
- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
- Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any
problems?
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
reading? In-depth study?
- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
And most importantly:
- Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
For more information about Boost Formal Review Process, see:
http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html
Thank you very much for your time and efforts.
--charley
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/
mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost