Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 24.08.2015 16:22, Niall Douglas wrote:
It would be a shame if AFIO were rejected due to that mistake in the tutorial, but it can't be undone for this review.
The problem is not the documentation mistake. The problem is that Boost.AFIO depends on another library that has not been reviewed or accepted. AFAIU, without that pre-requisite Boost.AFIO cannot be accepted. If my understanding is correct, this review should be cancelled (with the library being rejected as a result) and a review of Boost.Monad should be scheduled. That's my opinion.
I have to say that I find this choice of naming baffling. Why would you name a concrete type 'monad'? Makes no sense to me. Would not something like afio::result been better? In this way this is clearly a part of AFIO and no separate review would be necessary. If one insists on calling a type boost::monad, this is a serious claim over quite a territory and I agree with Andrey that this calls for a review of Boost.Monad.