Re: [Bloom] Some questions

From: Joaquin M López Muñoz (joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-05-19 18:27:00

El 18/05/2025 a las 19:29, Ivan Matek escribió:
>
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 5:59 PM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost 
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>     I don't know, looks to me ugly and potentially confusing to users,
>     who have no real use for that.
>
> To be honest I do not think it is so bad, you could just document it 
> is a common "primitive" used when it comes to index computation, and 
> then users will know why it is where it is.
> Only thing I suggest is to not put it in core. I have seen 
> core/util/common/whatever_name bloat in many projects and I am not a 
> fan of that.
>
>     In fact, there's another piece of functionality that I'd rather have
>     migrated to ContainerHash, namely the is_avalanching trait. Currently
>     this lives in Boost.Unordered, which forces Boost.Bloom to depend
>     on it
>     for no other reason than to access this almost trivial utility
>     --not ideal,
>     obviously.
>
> I would be a big fan philosophically of trait being in a small 
> header/library. For related example I dislike that for iterator_tags  
> you must include heavy std header, when it is trivial functionality. 
> IIRC there are even Boost libs that are defining them just to get 
> around the include. :)

Boost.IsAvalanching? Not sure I'm buying that :-)

>
>     Can you please post here the entire warning message so that I can
>     locate the offending line, plus the environment (compiler and version)
>     you're using? Thank you!
>
> It is IDE clang-tidy warning, not sure compiler matters.
> https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability/redundant-inline-specifier.html 
>

Could you please check if adding this comment to the offending lines

/* NOLINT(readability-redundant-inline-specifier) */

makes the warnings go away? If so, I'd happily accept a PR with
that change. Thank you!

Joaquin M Lopez Munoz