On 26 Aug 2015 at 5:31, Glen Fernandes wrote:
[Paul] Correct - and more - "that we wish and trust Niall to get it right - eventually."
That did not sound like a strong "Accept" to me. It sounded more like "Not reject" and "Please resubmit for review [after getting it right, eventually]."
The negative review responses so far have fallen into these categories: 1. Not all the APIs it uses are documented (because they are in other libraries). I will not look at this library until that is fixed. 2. Not all the APIs it uses are documented (because they are in other libraries). It therefore should be rejected. 3. The documentation has severe issues and needs a very great deal of additional work before it could be considered Boost-ready. 4. I think the fundamental design is flawed for these reasons X, Y and Z. Categories 1 and 2 are utterly useless to me. I appreciate the motives and where they are coming from, but let me be clear in return: if I bring AFIO back in twelve months time after lots more work, and those same people then say the design is fundamentally flawed for reasons X, Y and Z and should be rejected, I am going to be very upset with them indeed. I think anyone would understand where I would be coming from in that response. Category 3 has been an eye opener to put it mildly. I don't personally think severely flawed documentation is a reason to outright reject though. I do think that insufficient documentation is a reason to reject, but nobody can claim AFIO isn't well documented, it's just badly documented in a highly inaccessible structure with all the wrong information in the wrong places. That said, I think I have the fundamentals right e.g. race guarantees documented per API. There is a good base in there, I just hadn't realised where people get mentally stuck until now. Category 4 has been the most valuable, and that is exactly Thomas Heller's review. I personally believe AFIO's API design is the least worst possible given all the competing factors and pressures, else I'd present something better. However equally I may have chosen something wrong or misestimated the effect of some factor or pressure. Having to explain myself is immensely valuable - indeed right now it's 3.30am and I'm here typing this because I can't sleep thinking about how to explain my API design choices. Terrible on work life balance, hopefully great on a better API design if one is possible. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/