- Boost-announce - lists.boost.org

[review] Mp11 review starts in one week
by Bjorn Reese 09 Jul '17

09 Jul '17

The formal review of Peter Dimov's Mp11 library is scheduled for July 15 - July 24, 2017 [1]. Mp11 is a C++11 metaprogramming library for compile-time manipulation of data structures that contain types. It’s based on template aliases and variadic templates and implements the approach outlined in the article "Simple C++ metaprogramming" [2] and its sequel [3]. These articles are useful background information for the review. * Mp11 aims to make simple usage simple, and to support complex usage without complicating the simple use cases. * Mp11 works on any type-list, whether its own type-list mp_list, or standard type-lists such as std::tuple and std::variant, or user-defined type-lists. * Mp11 works with any meta-function, such as C++11 or Boost type-traits, or user-defined type-traits. Mp11 can be found here: * Documentation: https://rawgit.com/pdimov/mp11/master/doc/html/mp11.html * Source code: https://github.com/pdimov/mp11/tree/master [1] http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html [2] http://pdimov.com/cpp2/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming.html [3] http://pdimov.com/cpp2/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming_2.html

1 0

[boost] [review] Boost.Nowide is Accepted into Boost
by Frédéric Bron via Boost 23 Jun '17

23 Jun '17

Dear all, I would like to thank all the people who took part in the discussions during the review. All contributors admitted that Boost.Nowide addresses a real issue and solves it, at least partially. Moreover we received 8 official reviews with 6 “accept”, 1 “do not accept as is” and 1 “I am not against it”. So Boost.Nowide is accepted for inclusion in Boost. Congratulation and many thanks to Artyom Beilis for this contribution. However, 2 major issues arose in the discussions and they will have to be fixed before inclusion: 1. handling of ill-formed Unicode input should be improved/clarified 2. the documentation needs improvements In particular, this needs to be fixed: * Design: There was a lot of discussions on what to do with ill-formed UTF-16 strings on Windows, in particular coming from the file system while converting them to narrow UTF-8 strings. Basically, 3 options: 1. allow the roundtrip ill formed UTF-16 > UTF-8 > ill formed UTF-16, this is not possible with UTF-8 encoding, WTF-8 (not a standard) may be an option with some issues 2. issue an error (today’s nowide option, even if the author would like to move to 3.) 3. convert as much as possible to fully conformant UTF-8 with character replacement U+FFFD for invalid input. This is what the NT kernel does with functions like RtlUTF8ToUnicodeN. This would allow cout to continue to work after invalid output instead of failing. After reviewing what was chosen for std::filesystem in C++17, I think 3. is the right think to do: - std::filesystem::path::u8string does not convert strings on Posix. If a conversion is done (on Windows) the output is fully conformant UTF-8. - the roundtrip is not guaranteed in std::filesystem::path conversions (implementation defined) but the roundtrip of a converted paths is guaranteed to work which is the case with Boost.Nowide: once in fully conformant UTF-8, narrow > wide > narrow works fine. - the use of the replacement character U+FFFD is what is done by the NT kernel (question: do you have to reimplement RtlUTF8ToUnicodeN and RtlUnicodeToUTF8N, why not using them)? It should been made clear in the doc that this choice does not guarantees the roundtrip on Windows so that ill-formed filename may not be opened. * Documentation: - the main part of the doc (the non-reference part) should be more detailed - it should be clear to the reader that Windows and Posix platforms are not handled the same; on Windows, we get UTF-8 strings while on Posix platforms, the user should not expect UTF-8 encoding, just narrow strings, even if UTF-8 is today the most common encoding (addressed in Q/A but is probably too far away). It must be clear from the beginning that on Posix platforms, the library does nothing (including no checking of UTF-8 conformance), just forward to the standard library. - review the use of UTF-8 so that it do not let think that narrow strings are always UTF-8 as this is not necessary the case on Posix platform; maybe just use narrow string? - clarify what is converted to what and when: for each function, we need to know precisely what is the output for all possible input; in particular, better explain for each function what the library does with ill-formed input (either UTF-16 input or narrow input), in particular for args and getenv; say clearly what happens (failbit, error, exception, invalid character…) - clarify what is done for Windows and what is (not) done for Posix - explain better what is behind nowide::cout, cin, cerr, what is done? - clarify what does the filesystem integration on Windows vs Posix - check if basic_stackstring::swap needs to swap buffer_ when both strings are on the stack - The doc/ directory is missing a Jamfile, and there's also no meta/libraries.json. * Implementation: - The global BOOST_USE_WINDOWS_H macro should probably be respected. When windows.h is not used, the WinAPI prototypes are declared in the global namespace. This can cause issues when windows.h is also included before/after the Nowide headers, and the prototypes don't match exactly (e.g. short vs. wchar_t). Also it pollutes the global namespace. Nowide should do what other Boost libraries do, and declare the prototypes in a private detail namespace instead. Example in <boost/thread/win32/thread_primitives.hpp>. Need to add a namespace around your definitions. - MinGW gcc: fix warnings in c++03 mode and errors in c++11 and above - Cygwin gcc/clang (errors because of missing ::getenv and friends) - when this is fixed, an error remains: in file included from test\test_system.cpp:11:0: ..\../boost/nowide/cenv.hpp: In function 'int boost::nowide::putenv(char*)': ..\../boost/nowide/cenv.hpp:104:41: warning: comparison between pointer and zero character constant [-Wpointer-compare] while(*key_end!='=' && key_end!='\0') - Under MSYS, one test failed Fail: Error boost::nowide::cin.putback(c) in test_iostream.cpp:17 main - filesystem integration should return somehow the previous locale for potential undoing * Misc: - There are no .travis.yml and appveyor.yml files in the root. - a number of copy/paste references to Boost.System (test/Jamfile) and Boost.Locale (index.html), should be corrected This are just suggestions and are not mandatory for acceptance: - implement stat/opendir/readir - integration with boost::interprocess::file_lock - integration with boost::program_options (in particular for correct line breaks when showing options) Frédéric _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

[boost] [review] Beast review coming up!
by Michael Caisse via Boost 21 Jun '17

21 Jun '17

The Boost formal review of Vinnie Falco’s Beast library will take place July 1 - 10, 2017. Beast is a C++ header-only library serving as a foundation for writing interoperable networking libraries by providing low-level HTTP/1, WebSocket, and networking protocol vocabulary types and algorithms using the consistent asynchronous model of Boost.Asio. This library will be familiar to programmers that have used Boost.Asio or the Networking TS. Users who wish to use asynchronous interfaces should already know how to create concurrent network programs using callbacks or coroutines. Beast is designed for: * Symmetry: Algorithms are role-agnostic; build clients, servers, or both. * Ease of Use: Boost.Asio users will immediately understand Beast. * Flexibility: Users make the important decisions such as buffer or thread management. * Performance: Build applications handling thousands of connections or more. * Basis for Further Abstraction. Components are well-suited for building upon. Beast can be found here: * Documentation : <http://vinniefalco.github.io/beast/> * Source code : <https://github.com/vinniefalco/Beast> * The FAQ answers real questions that come up : <http://vinniefalco.github.io/beast/beast/design_choices/faq.html> A lightning talk from CppCon 2016 introducing Beast can be found here: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJZgRcvPFwI> If you find an obvious bug or problem with the library, please open a GitHub Issue <https://github.com/vinniefalco/Beast/issues>. Vinnie has a track record of resolving issues quickly. Please feel free to take an early look at the library and ask questions. Maybe even click that github Star button! The actual review will be against a non-mutating branch starting July 1st. -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

[boost] [sort] pdqsort mini-review
by Steven Ross via Boost 20 Jun '17

20 Jun '17

The (mini) review for pdqsort will start tomorrow 6/21, and run through 6/30. I will manage the review; Orson Peters is the author. The proposed boost source is here: https://gist.github.com/orlp/24f27aada1ed724d1809b372c33eb92e Documentation is here: https://github.com/orlp/pdqsort#pdqsort And a draft paper is here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1-vl-dPgKm_T0Fxeno1a0lGT0E If you're interested, please answer these questions: 1. Are there any specific concerns you have about pdqsort vs. std::sort? 2. Does it compile for you when you try to use it as a replacement for std::sort? 3. How does the performance compare on your system vs. std::sort? 4. Do you think we should include pdqsort in Boost.Sort? 5. Do you have any concerns about switching the default/fallback sort in Boost libraries (including Boost.Sort) from std::sort to pdqsort? _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

[boost] [sort] Timsort review result
by Steven Ross via Boost 13 Jun '17

13 Jun '17

After reviewing the responses, I have rejected Timsort. Here are the reasons: 1. No author/maintainer responses to the questions on boost (except for forwarding some documentation links). We need a maintainer for all our source, and I'm not volunteering to maintain new functions as complex as Timsort. 2. There was no response on the Timsort bug reported during the review, nor any tests for it. 3. We need better tests. 4. Francisco is including a more efficient stable sort as part of his additions to the library, including handling special cases like Timsort handles better than stable_sort does. Francisco will maintain his code. I'd like to note that many people THINK they are experts on sorting because they covered it in class or may have read about it in a textbook, but most do not understand hybrid sorts well. As a specific example, I saw O(N*log(N)) mentioned as the worst-case speed limit of general-case sorts, when in fact Spreadsort beats that as described in its docs: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_61_0/libs/sort/doc/html/index.html#sort.ove… Many people also don't carefully analyze for worst-case performance, which can be tricky. With regards to future sorting library reviews, I'll get at least a one-page doc describing the algorithm for the review in advance, but the boost documentation formatting is an unreasonable request for a simple sorting function, and I don't see the value it adds for these simple reviews. It is useful for a full library, but we'll be integrating the documentation into our full library after a new function is accepted. It isn't accurate to call it a mini-review (as described here: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Fast-Track) because it's reviewing completely new source we're talking about adding to the library. That said, do you still want me to a call the upcoming one for pdqsort a "mini-review"? _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

[boost][review] Review of Nowide (Unicode) starts today
by Frédéric Bron 12 Jun '17

12 Jun '17

Hi Everyone, The formal review of Artyom Beilis' Nowide library starts today and will last until Wed. 21st of June. Your participation is encouraged, as the proposed library is uncoupled, focused and rather small. Nowadays, everyone needs to handle Unicode but this is very difficult using only the standard library in a platform independant way. Nowide offers a very simple way to handle Unicode the same way on Windows/MacOS/Linux. Key features: * work with UTF-8 in your code, Nowide converts to OS encoding * Easy to use functions for converting UTF-8 to/from UTF-16 * A class to fixing argc, argc and env main parameters to use UTF-8 * UTF-8 aware functions: - stdio.h functions (fopen, freopen, remove, rename) - stdlib.h functions (system, getenv, setenv, unsetenv, putenv) - fstream (filebuf, fstream/ofstream/ifstream) - iostream (cout, cerr, clog, cin) Documentation: http://cppcms.com/files/nowide/html GitHub: https://github.com/artyom-beilis/nowide git clone https://github.com/artyom-beilis/nowide.git Latest tarballs: - to be unzipped in boost source: https://github.com/artyom-beilis/nowide/archive/master.zip - as a standalone library: http://cppcms.com/files/nowide/nowide_standalone.zip Nowide has standard boost layout. So, just put it into the boost source tree under libs/nowide directory for building and running tests. Or alternatively - for header only part of the library add the nowide/include path to the include path of your projects. Please post your comments and review to the boost mailing list (preferably), or privately to the Review Manager (to me ;-). Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: - What is your evaluation of the design? - What is your evaluation of the implementation? - What is your evaluation of the documentation? - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And most importantly: - 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. For more information about Boost Formal Review Process, see: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html Thank you very much for your time and efforts. Frédéric

1 0

[boost][review] **NEXT WEEK** Review of Nowide (Unicode) Mon. 12th -> Wed. 21st June
by Frédéric Bron 10 Jun '17

10 Jun '17

Hi Everyone, ** HEADS UP, NEXT WEEK'S REVIEW ** The formal review of Artyom Beilis' Nowide library starts next week (Mon. 12-June to Wed. 21-June). Your participation is encouraged, as the proposed library is uncoupled and focused. Nowadays, everyone needs to handle Unicode but this is very difficult using only the standard library in a platform independant way. Nowide offers a very simple way to handle Unicode the same way on Windows/MacOS/Linux. Key features: * work with UTF-8 in your code, Nowide converts to OS encoding * Easy to use functions for converting UTF-8 to/from UTF-16 * A class to fixing argc, argc and env main parameters to use UTF-8 * UTF-8 aware functions: - stdio.h functions (fopen, freopen, remove, rename) - stdlib.h functions (system, getenv, setenv, unsetenv, putenv) - fstream (filebuf, fstream/ofstream/ifstream) - iostream (cout, cerr, clog, cin) Documentation: http://cppcms.com/files/nowide/html GitHub: https://github.com/artyom-beilis/nowide git clone https://github.com/artyom-beilis/nowide.git Latest tarball: get it from GitHub (Download as zip) NEXT WEEK (when the public review is started): Please post your comments and review to the boost mailing list (preferably), or privately to the Review Manager (to me ;-). Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: - What is your evaluation of the design? - What is your evaluation of the implementation? - What is your evaluation of the documentation? - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And most importantly: - 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. For more information about Boost Formal Review Process, see: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html Thank you very much for your time and efforts. Frédéric

1 0

[boost][review] Outcome Review Report
by charleyb123 . 06 Jun '17

06 Jun '17

# Boost.Outcome REVIEW REPORT In conclusion to the Outcome Library Review (19-May to 02-June, 2017): The library is REJECTED. Rejection is principally due to: (1) Unresolved key behavior at conclusion of the review period (2) Misunderstanding/disagreement regarding library’s intended purpose (3) Unclear precedent/implications from accepting this library in its current configuration into the Boost distribution The following weighed heavily to consider accepting the library into Boost: (a) The library demonstrates solutions to fundamental issues (error and exception handling) (b) The library effectively addresses constraints to serve the needs of several user-bases (c) New paradigms/idioms are enabled (d) Implementation is of high quality Some 20+ participants sent 850+ email messages to the public list discussing the Outcome library, plus additional (non-trivial) off-list discussion. Public reviews sent to the list were from: *- Paul Bristow -- ACCEPT (Tue-23-May) *- Deniz Bahadir -- ACCEPT (Wed-24-May) *- Robert Ramey -- REJECT (Fri-26-May) *- Peter Dimov -- REJECT (Sun-28-May) *- Emil Dotchevski -- REJECT (Sun-28-May) *- Vicente J. Botet Escriba -- REJECT (Tue-30-May) *- Andrzej Krzemienski -- REJECT (Wed-31-May) *- Gavin Lambert -- REJECT (May 31) *- Bjorn Reese -- REJECT (Fri-02-June) The remainder of this report is a summary of discussion with select issues specific to the Outcome library, plus some possible topics for further consideration by the Boost Community and Boost Steering Committee. This further elaboration is not intended to be comprehensive regarding issues raised during the review; Rather, it is to: (a) Provide historical “summary/context” for the level of discussion exhibited during this review, and which contributed to the final decision; (b) Highlight issues that may provide assistance in considering “readiness” for a later review for an evolved form of this library (or for a similar library intending to address the same domain); (c) Provide “discussion-points” for the Boost Community and Boost Steering Committee regarding possible future evolution or guidance associated with Boost tooling, distribution, and individual library dependencies (related to topics raised during this review). The conclusions will be: (1) Outcome Library Author: Consider re-submitting for review when... (a) Key behavior/design issues are resolved (see below) (b) Integration plan with Boost is more clear (and consistent with Boost Steering Committee Guidance) (2) Boost Community / Boost Steering Committee: Consider providing guidance to future library submissions regarding... (a) Attempted dual-license, this submission attempted: *- BSL+Apache2 dual-license (b) “Extra-build-steps”, this submission attempted: *- Custom preprocessing to “generate-source” (to significantly improve compile-time speed) (Note: During review, a template-based solution was proposed as a possible replacement mechanism, but code-gen should probably be explicitly addressed) (c) Class/namespace versioning, this submission attempted: *- Stable ABI/versioning mechanism through a framework provided with this submission (to enable multiple versions of this library used by differing third-party libraries to correctly coexist within the same binary) (d) Use of outside source; use of git (git-submodules), this submission attempted: *- Dependency to an outside (git-submodule) lib archive (gsl-lite: https://github.com/martinmoene/gsl-lite.git ) (e) Use of (non-test/Jamfile) for test, this submission attempted: *- Custom test mechanism (because “Boost.Test” won’t work with C++ exceptions disabled; lib needed “boost-lite” to run the test suite) (f) Use of CMake, Dependency upon Boost, this submission attempted: *- No Boost dependency (but provided a “boost-lite” shim to coexist in user-workspaces with-or-without Boost, providing common cmake machinery and test-running) # SUMMARY OVERVIEW As demonstrated through the volume and depth of discussion, the library attracted wide interest, which is consistent with a perception that it attempts to address an active need. Comments suggested the library’s purpose (enabling public APIs to pass <value|error|exception>) was useful, and that enabling a shared handling of <error|exception> to be somewhat novel. Several participants further suggested that the library attempts to serve a role as a “fundamental” library: to provide vocabulary types and pose new idioms, to be used in public APIs as a common <error|exception> exchange mechanism. One reviewer commented that the library’s documentation under-sold the library’s motivation, suggesting it compelling for: *- Cases where errors cannot be propagated by throwing exceptions (e.g., within callbacks where an error value is provided [e.g., ASIO]); *- When passing values between threads, such as in an Actor model where a message queue handles return values (e.g., pass outcome<T> instead of an std::error_code to handle <error|exception> in addition to desired <T>) Many/most reviewers that voted REJECT commented that they would like a similar library to be accepted, or perhaps an evolved form of this library after necessary changes (see below). To accept the importance of the domain which the library attempts to address, one need not agree with the design nor implementation of Outcome (indeed, the library is rejected in its current form at the conclusion of this review). Rather, this summary assertion is that the Outcome proposal successfully demonstrates a need for such a fundamental (and community-endorsed) solution (or direction) for error handling. # ISSUE: Unresolved key behavior at conclusion of the review period Key behavior (or design) issues that did not reach consensus by the end of the review period: (1) Narrow vs. Wide contracts -- consensus is not reached (2) Empty-state (allowed?) remains controversial (3) Ring-buffer appears uncontroversial; but perhaps needs additional scrutiny (a) Separate library implementation (for reuse elsewhere, and to enable evolution without touching the ‘result<>’/’outcome<>’ API)? (b) Bigger buffer? Some of the difficulties in this evaluation likely trace to the (in-progress) evolution of the proposed ‘std::expected<>’ (also discussed during this review). A future Outcome review would likely benefit from the clarity provided by fully resolved semantics for ‘std::expected<>’. # ISSUE: Misunderstanding/disagreement regarding library’s intended purpose The Outcome library attempts to define a paradigm and propose idioms in <error|exception> handling, where few can successfully argue that current practice, libraries, and idioms are sufficient. The review concluded that Outcome proposes a new paradigm that is demonstrated to be useful and effective. However, disagreement exists on the nature of that framework: PURPOSE: Outcome is a unified/universal <error|exception> handling framework for use in public APIs; (a) ...enabling user-customization to address domain-specific constraints ...versus... (b) ...for possible future consideration in a C++ Standards Track, likely within <system_error> The Library Author intended (a), while multiple reviewers advocated for (b). This disagreement-in-vision resulted in many difficult discussions during the review, and ultimately lack of consensus for several important API and design decisions (due to the corresponding implied future limitations). For example: Static-checked vs. Runtime-checked behavior. The library-as-presented attempts to serve both, citing orthogonal user bases with differing (latency) constraints, such as “with-or-without” runtime overhead, and “with-or-without” Undefined Behavior (UB). Current implementation enables integration of arbitrary third-party libraries (each with their own preferred error handling strategy and tradeoffs), with zero-cost conversion and inter-operation. However, this *significantly* complicates the design: The user composes ‘result<>’ and ‘outcome<>’ types with regards to module-specific static or runtime type safety and performance requirements, which (transparently) propagate through the library internals and across threads and public APIs to external modules. In contrast, a C++ Standards Track implementation is likely much simpler, introducing one-or-two vocabulary types merely parameterized on ‘<T>’, providing a simplified (and “standard”) mechanism to bridge <T|error|exception> transport across third-party module boundaries. For example, in advocating for a “Standards-Track” vocabulary type, reviewers argued for a mechanism that would enable user-libraries to obsolete the duplicate “throw/no-throw” APIs with a single API: R filesystem_api(); // throws filesystem_error R filesystem_api( error_code& ec ) noexcept; ...becomes... outcome<R> filesystem_api(); // <R|error|exception> The contrast between the two visions can more distinctly be termed: (a) “Multi-Modal” Usage -- Many varieties of usage style within the API is necessary, because there are a multitude of ways for library abstractions to be used in composition patterns due to domain-specific constraints (likely with some idioms not yet discovered, or not yet in widespread use) (b) “Single-Modal” Usage -- One (single) clean design and use model is encouraged The Library Author states that normal C++ design principles should prefer (b), but due to the vocabulary-type nature of the problem and domain-specific constraints encountered by real-world users, this particular library was forcefully evolved into (a). It is perhaps ironic that the suitability of a proposed library as providing vocabulary types and possibly evolving into a future standard demands that the Library Author change the library’s stated purpose due to this potential popularity; but that seems consistent with the current circumstance. The Library Author (of course) should have authority to characterize the actual intended use-case and resulting behavior provided through the authored work; with the Review Process providing analysis and feedback regarding possible missed opportunity resulting from those decisions. However, this review’s conclusion seems to encounter the curious scenario where the vision itself remains in conflict. Of course, these very differing outlooks resulted in some apparent “impasses” or circular discussions regarding type-safety (and number-of-types), wide or narrow contracts, optimization opportunities, “too-big” (or “cluttered”) interfaces, implicit or explicit conversion, the need for iterator and visitor patterns on ‘outcome<T>’, and the “empty” state and sentinel values. In support of the “Multi-Modal” design, the Library Author posits three main use patterns exist for error-handling objects-returned, and that a single design can serve only two at best: (Quoting the Library Author): > <quote> > (1) User wants failure reason type to be local to only the code to which > it applies. So think custom E type, nonconvertible to any other E type, and > E is never error_code nor exception_ptr. They specifically want to keep > failure handling local a small patch of code e.g. constexpr evaluation > contexts. > > All-narrow observers make sense for this use case as object usage is > tightly integrated to the code using it, and failure is handled entirely > locally. > > (2) User wants failure reason type to be globally understood and will be > choosing either E = std::error_code, or E = std::exception_ptr. They > specifically want failure handling to be able to traverse any or all code, > just like C++ exception throws. This is where Outcome was primarily aimed > at. > > All-wide observers make sense for this use case, as due to handling a wide > degree of uncertainty, most failure handling code is *generic* i.e. we test > for some specific failure causes, and for everything else we either ignore > or hand it off to other code to handle. > > (3) User wants to write functional programming logic using the basic > vocabulary of Maybe, Either and i/o monads and basic operators of bind, > fmap, do etc and probably some subset or refinement of Hana for the > collections monads, though my GSoC student may be making the Ranges TS a > choice here as well later this summer. > > All-narrow observers make sense for this use case as the monadic operators > ensure your function will never be called with the wrong state. > </quote> The Outcome library uses a, “single implementation, multiple personalities” to solve this problem, and makes the intentional decision to attempt targeting (2). # ISSUE: Unclear precedent/implications from including this library in its current configuration into the Boost distribution The library in its current configuration is perceived as setting precedent for changes to the Boost distribution, which reviewers commented added complexity to their analysis. Specific topics: *- Dual-license (BSL and Apache2) confused reviewers *- Add bjam support (author agreed) *- Packaging relied upon git-submodules to an outside lib archive (gsl-lite, https://github.com/martinmoene/gsl-lite.git) *- Library does tricks with the preprocessor to avoid significant compile-time costs; but these tricks were commented by some reviewers as being unnecessarily complex. *- The Author found these tricks necessary to reach reasonable compile metrics for large projects using Outcome in their public APIs, and believes some mechanism must address this build-speed-need. A proposed metaprogramming mechanism may eliminate the need for these preprocessor tricks in the future. # FINAL THOUGHTS In the very active years of “Classic Boost” (such as 2004-2008), fundamental libraries had a good chance of becoming vocabulary types that attempt to establish new Best Practice for the industry (and not merely be “just another library”). This awareness drove much of the review discussion, and underscored the importance of experimentation and “lessons learned” to result in a library that offered: (1) behavior and idioms that are understood; and (2) sufficient experience to make use recommendation to the wider user base in contrast to existing alternative approaches. Consistent with this historical context, it should be relatively uncontroversial to recognize that the Outcome library does not reach that threshold at this time (so it is rejected). However, this review also suggests: (1) A similar library is needed; (2) The community lacks agreement on direction (e.g., “Multi-Modal” vs. “Single-Modal”) In support of experimentation and to expand on our “lessons-learned”, it seems somewhat obvious that Outcome provides a strongly-implemented Multi-Modal low-latency library that will assist the community in gaining experience with these idioms proposed. Since conclusion of the review period, discussion continues (on and off-list) regarding possible evolution to the Outcome library, related to feedback provided during this review, and related to discussions of design evolution for pertinent libraries (e.g., possible changes to std::expected<>, and evolution of a never-empty ‘variant2<>’). It is promising that such a strong library as Outcome continues to receive critical attention and evolution by multiple interested parties. Great thanks to the Boost Community for their tremendous efforts, disciplined review, and detailed exploration of topics in considering this library submission. Sincerest appreciation to Niall Douglas (Author of the Outcome Library) for pushing the envelope for low-latency <error|exception> handling and for submitting his work to the Boost Review process. -- charley (Outcome Review Manager) If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar's, to him I say that Brutus' love to Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. (3.2.19-24)

1 0

[boost] [sort] Timsort review
by Steven Ross via Boost 03 Jun '17

03 Jun '17

The review for C++ Timsort in Boost will commence tomorrow, June 3, and continue through June 12. I am the review manager. The code can be found here: https://github.com/boostorg/sort/pull/12 To merge it into a local copy of the Boost.Sort library: git checkout -b ZaMaZaN4iK-feature_branch/TimSort develop git pull https://github.com/ZaMaZaN4iK/sort.git \ feature_branch/TimSort If you want to see a proposed version of the Sort library source with Francisco's changes and Timsort included, download the zip file <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4s-GPKYVV0jOGx5ckJUTkZzMWM/view?usp=shari…>. Feel free to compare flat_stable_sort with Timsort. Please answer these questions in reply to this thread: 1. What is your evaluation of the Timsort implementation? 2. What is your evaluation of the comments? 3. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? 4. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? 5. How familiar are you with the details of hybrid and stable sorts? 6. Would you actually use Timsort if it was in Boost.Sort? If so, how is it better than the next best alternative? 7. Do you think Timsort should be included in Boost.Sort? Please ask Alexander Zaitsev any questions you have about Timsort for this review before submitting your final review. Thanks, Steven Ross _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

[boost][outcome] Outcome Review Period Closes Today (Fri-02-June)
by charleyb123 . 02 Jun '17

02 Jun '17

Hello Everyone, Today concludes the Outcome library review period (Fri-02-June-2017). Great thanks to all that invested so much time and effort to explore in such a disciplined and professional manner the dark corners of error/exception composition and a paradigm/API/implementation proposed by the Outcome library. Your efforts are truly appreciated. Reviews sent to the public list are the following (PLEASE contact me if I've missed your review): *- Paul Bristow (Tue-23-May) *- Daniz Bahadir (Wed-24-May) *- Robert Ramey (Wed-24-May) *- Peter Dimov (Sun-28-May) *- Emil Dotchevski (Sun-28-May) *- Vicente J. Botet Escriba (Tue-20-May) *- Andrzej Krzemienski (Wed-31-May) *- Gavin Lambert (Wed-31-May) My understanding is that as the review concludes today, further reviews are permitted only until the end-of-day UTC. In addition, many notable discussions and topics raised during the review period will also contribute to a final submission decision and summary report. Preparing this report will take some time. I've accumulated extensive notes, but my intention is to review (re-read) all discussion in the context of the "story-arc" and (in some cases) the shifted opinions of some persons during the course of the review (as topics were clarified and alternatives were explored). I assume other "satellite discussions" will continue (e.g., evolution of std::expected<>, suitability of wide vs. narrow contract in APIs, generalization of variant<>, etc.), which I will endeavor to continue to follow as the Outcome Review summary report is prepared (because these continued discussions may further clarify issues previously raised during the Outcome Review); but no more reviews can be accepted after the review period closes. Thank you all (again) for your (often thankless) contributions to the community, where the personal sacrifice in time and effort (and perhaps stressful emotional investment) is quite obviously extensive in many cases. --charley

1 0