Hi, The formal review of Paul Fultz II's Fit library ends today, 13th March. If you had not time to do the review and you plan to do it, please let us know so that we see if the review can be extended. Up to now we had 3 formal review (2 for conditional acceptance and 1 against, not now). I have not done a review myself, but I have created a lot of issues on Github. Best regards, Vicente Fit is a header-only C++11/C++14 library that provides utilities for functions and function objects. Fit is: - Modern: Fit takes advantages of modern C++11/C++14 features. It support both `constexpr` initialization and `constexpr` evaluation of functions. It takes advantage of type deduction, varidiac templates, and perfect forwarding to provide a simple and modern interface. - Relevant: Fit provides utilities for functions and does not try to implement a functional language in C++. As such, Fit solves many problems relevant to C++ programmers, including initialization of function objects and lambdas, overloading with ordering, improved return type deduction, and much more. - Lightweight: Fit builds simple lightweight abstraction on top of function objects. It does not require subscribing to an entire framework. Just use the parts you need. Fit is divided into three components: * Function Adaptors and Decorators: These enhance functions with additional capability. * Functions: These return functions that achieve a specific purpose. * Utilities: These are general utilities that are useful when defining or using functions Fit has been tested on gcc 4.6-4.9, clang 3.4-3.7, and Visual Studio 2015. For more information see: Github:https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit/tree/boost Documentation:http://pfultz2.github.io/Fit/doc/html/ We encourage your participation in this review. At a minimum, kindly state: - Whether you believe the library should be accepted into Boost * Conditions for acceptance - Your name - Your knowledge of the problem domain. You are strongly encouraged to also provide additional information: - What is your evaluation of the library's: * Design * Implementation * Documentation * Tests * Usefulness - Did you attempt to use the library? If so: * Which compiler(s) * What was the experience? Any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation of the review? More information about the review process can be found here:http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html We await your feedback!
Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
The formal review of Paul Fultz II's Fit library ends today, 13th March. If you had not time to do the review and you plan to do it, please let us know so that we see if the review can be extended.
I do not have time at the moment for a full review, but I would like to cast my vote in favor of acceptance. I looked at Fit at the time the review was announced as forthcoming (a few weeks ago) and it gave me the impression of a potentially very useful library that would be a worthwhile addition to Boost. In my opinion, none of the changes that have been requested so far, and which Paul have committed to address, require the library to be rejected and re-reviewed later.
Le 13/03/2016 15:24, Peter Dimov a écrit :
Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
The formal review of Paul Fultz II's Fit library ends today, 13th March. If you had not time to do the review and you plan to do it, please let us know so that we see if the review can be extended.
I do not have time at the moment for a full review, but I would like to cast my vote in favor of acceptance.
I looked at Fit at the time the review was announced as forthcoming (a few weeks ago) and it gave me the impression of a potentially very useful library that would be a worthwhile addition to Boost.
In my opinion, none of the changes that have been requested so far, and which Paul have committed to address, require the library to be rejected and re-reviewed later.
Thanks Peter for sharing your point of view. Vicente
Hi, I have been checking both the library (I have not used Fit for eight months or so, so I had to be sure I didn't miss anything) and the review the whole week, but I haven't had enough time to formalize a review. My opinion is, as others stated, that Fit is useful (function composition, lifting, tools, etc) and has quality enough to be incorporated into Boost. My only concern, first noticed by Louis Dionne IIRC, is that constexpr lambda objects are not constexpr-evaluated. This may be obvious for experts like us, but might be a source of misconception for newcomers. Until C++17 fixes this with constexpr lambdas a documentation note clarifying it should be enough. Of course such a detail is not a reason for rejection, my opinion is that Fit should be accepted unconditionally. Hope it helps. El dom., 13 de marzo de 2016 17:38, Vicente J. Botet Escriba < vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> escribió:
Le 13/03/2016 15:24, Peter Dimov a écrit :
Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
The formal review of Paul Fultz II's Fit library ends today, 13th March. If you had not time to do the review and you plan to do it, please let us know so that we see if the review can be extended.
I do not have time at the moment for a full review, but I would like to cast my vote in favor of acceptance.
I looked at Fit at the time the review was announced as forthcoming (a few weeks ago) and it gave me the impression of a potentially very useful library that would be a worthwhile addition to Boost.
In my opinion, none of the changes that have been requested so far, and which Paul have committed to address, require the library to be rejected and re-reviewed later.
Thanks Peter for sharing your point of view.
Vicente
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:38:05 PM UTC-5, Manu Sánchez wrote:
Hi,
I have been checking both the library (I have not used Fit for eight months or so, so I had to be sure I didn't miss anything) and the review the whole week, but I haven't had enough time to formalize a review.
My opinion is, as others stated, that Fit is useful (function composition, lifting, tools, etc) and has quality enough to be incorporated into Boost. My only concern, first noticed by Louis Dionne IIRC, is that constexpr lambda objects are not constexpr-evaluated. This may be obvious for experts like us, but might be a source of misconception for newcomers. Until C++17 fixes this with constexpr lambdas a documentation note clarifying it should be enough. Of course such a detail is not a reason for rejection, my opinion is that Fit should be accepted unconditionally.
Thanks Manu for the support, and I'm glad you've found the library useful. Paul
Hope it helps.
El dom., 13 de marzo de 2016 17:38, Vicente J. Botet Escriba < vicent...@wanadoo.fr javascript:> escribió:
Le 13/03/2016 15:24, Peter Dimov a écrit :
Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
The formal review of Paul Fultz II's Fit library ends today, 13th March. If you had not time to do the review and you plan to do it, please let us know so that we see if the review can be extended.
I do not have time at the moment for a full review, but I would like to cast my vote in favor of acceptance.
I looked at Fit at the time the review was announced as forthcoming (a few weeks ago) and it gave me the impression of a potentially very useful library that would be a worthwhile addition to Boost.
In my opinion, none of the changes that have been requested so far, and which Paul have committed to address, require the library to be rejected and re-reviewed later.
Thanks Peter for sharing your point of view.
Vicente
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Le 13/03/2016 20:37, Manu Sánchez a écrit :
Hi,
I have been checking both the library (I have not used Fit for eight months or so, so I had to be sure I didn't miss anything) and the review the whole week, but I haven't had enough time to formalize a review.
My opinion is, as others stated, that Fit is useful (function composition, lifting, tools, etc) and has quality enough to be incorporated into Boost. My only concern, first noticed by Louis Dionne IIRC, is that constexpr lambda objects are not constexpr-evaluated. This may be obvious for experts like us, but might be a source of misconception for newcomers. Until C++17 fixes this with constexpr lambdas a documentation note clarifying it should be enough. Of course such a detail is not a reason for rejection, my opinion is that Fit should be accepted unconditionally.
Hope it helps.
Gracias Manu. I believe that we will extend the review until the 20th so that we can have more reviews, the goal being to improve the library before acceptance into Boost. I need confirmation from the Review Withards, but anyway I will take any late review into consideration. Best, Vicente
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:24:43 AM UTC-5, Peter Dimov wrote:
Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
The formal review of Paul Fultz II's Fit library ends today, 13th March. If you had not time to do the review and you plan to do it, please let us know so that we see if the review can be extended.
I do not have time at the moment for a full review, but I would like to cast my vote in favor of acceptance.
I looked at Fit at the time the review was announced as forthcoming (a few weeks ago) and it gave me the impression of a potentially very useful library that would be a worthwhile addition to Boost.
In my opinion, none of the changes that have been requested so far, and which Paul have committed to address, require the library to be rejected and re-reviewed later.
Thanks Peter for the support. Of course, if you do see any issues later on, you can always open an issue on github. Paul
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
participants (4)
-
Manu Sánchez -
Paul Fultz II -
Peter Dimov -
Vicente J. Botet Escriba