On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Bjorn Reese via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote: [snip]
1. Should Mp11 be accepted into Boost? Please state all conditions for acceptance explicity.
MP11 should be ACCEPTED. I don't really have an opinion on the merits of
mp11 vs. Metal/Brigand/Kvasir, but I think MP11 has a home in Boost, and I'm glad it has been proposed. Apologies for the late review.
2. What is your evaluation of the design?
I really like the lightweight approach, and I especially appreciate the wide compatibility. The compatibility level is the biggest value to Boost here -- the effort required to achieve this is significant. The algorithm selection is fine. I'm not a fan of the mp_ prefix. I'm also not a fan of interfaces with "first", "second", and "third" (I prefer indices).
3. What is your evaluation of the implementation?
I think the manual unrolling of variadic templates is strange (reminds me of old C++), but I assume this is done for optimization (?). 4. What is your evaluation of the documentation?
It seems solid. I only skimmed it.
5. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
Useful, given its compatibility claims. I will continue to use Hana for my projects, but I would reach for this if I needed to support MSVC.
6. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems?
No.
7. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
I skimmed the unified header and the docs. I spent a total of about 90 minutes.
8. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Yes. I am very familiar with the implementation and usage of many metaprogramming libraries and techniques. Barrett Adair