Re: [boost] [review][Fit] Review of Fit starts today : September 8 - September 17

On Sep 17, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

On 9/8/17 4:02 AM, Matt Calabrese via Boost wrote:

...

Please provide in your review whatever information you think is valuable to understand your final choice of ACCEPT or REJECT including > Fit as a Boost library. Please be explicit about your decision.

I recommend that the review manager accept this library into boost without conditions.

...

Some other questions you might want to consider answering: - What is your evaluation of the designGood - - What is your evaluation of the implementation? I didn't look into it. - What is your evaluation of the documentation? Much better than average. Basically quite usable. The Getting Started was very helpful to me. - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? It took me a while to see this, but I realize that I could see this right now. - Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you have any problems? I didn't try it - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? Two hours of poking through the documentation in the context of some current issues I'm dealing with. - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Compared to whom? Actually I don't consider myself particularly knowledgeable. I did spend a fair amount of time looking at boost.functional, boost.call_traits and cpp_reference functional, and some C++17 constructs like is_invocable, etc. After I did all that the purpose, utility and usage seemed pretty straight forward. - Were the concerns from the March 2016 review of Fit addressed? I didn't do a review in March 2016.

Thanks for the review.