Re: [review] Review of Flyweight library begins today January 21

> * What is your evaluation of the design?
Very good. It seems everything is configurable if needed and works as 
expected out of the box.

Perhaps intermodule_holder should be the default holder specifier as 
there is an unpleasant potential gotcha otherwise? The docs do not state 
why not as far as I can see. An efficiency issue perhaps?

Whilst not having a strong opinion, I prefer the policy-based 
configuration interface as is.

> * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
Whilst not having a strong opinion, I like the operator== as is.

> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
Extremely clearly written and well thought out. I would like to see more 
explanation of the examples. I like the inclusion of the test code.

> * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I can think of several situations where I could have gained from using 
the flyweight idiom and this library would have saved me time and 
effort. I expect to encounter more in the future.

> * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
No

> * How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
>      A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
A quick read through the tutorial and the examples.

> * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I'm not an expert in design patterns but I've been using C++ for a 15 
years now.

> * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
>      Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments
>      don't obscure your overall opinion.
Definitely.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost