edouard <at> fausse.info
[...]
* Documentation
I think writing "using namespace boost::hana" for the documentation is confusion. I know it might be nit-picking, but I think the example is easier to understand when you read
[...]
Because if you read diagonally (and let's be realistic, we all read diagonally documentation) you might miss what is going on. At least some namespace alias would be helpful. I personally think redundancy is good in documentations.
Good suggestion. I think a `namespace hana = boost::hana` alias would be better than fully qualifying all the names. Added this issue [1].
[...]
* What was the experience? Any problems?
The only problem I have with Hana is that it doesn't work with Visual Studio. The lack of VS is the only reason why we didn't adopt Hana on our product. Nevertheless, I don't think it a showstopper. Hana is an advanced MPL and the problem will solve by itself with time. It works, in my opinion, on a sufficient number on platforms at the moment to be accepted into Boost.
I think acceptance into boost and more wide usage of the library might also push compiler vendors to (properly) support C++14 faster. That's sort of a chicken-and-egg problem; if no one uses advanced features, vendors don't have incentives to implement them and they also can't fix their bugs. On the other hand, once all these features are available and bugfree, users will use them.
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation of the review?
I ran by the examples again as I would if I were trying the library for the first time. I have been following Boost.Hana since Louis' presentation at last year cppcon in Bellevue, Wa.
Thanks a lot for your review, Edouard! Regards, Louis [1]: https://github.com/ldionne/hana/issues/126