- Boost-announce - lists.boost.org

Formal Review Tribool
by Thomas Witt 19 May '04

19 May '04

The review of Douglas Gregor's Tribool library begins now and runs through Saturday, May 29. Here is a short introduction to the library: The 3-state boolean library contains a single class, boost::logic::tribool, along with support functions and operator overloads that implement 3-state boolean logic. The tribool class acts like the built-in bool type, but for 3-state boolean logic. The three states are true, false, and indeterminate, where the first two states are equivalent to those of the C++ bool type and the last state represents an unknown boolean value (that may be true or false, we don't know). When reviewing the library, please remember to include: * 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 finally, every review should answer this question: * 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. The library is available in the Boost files area as tribool-20031026.tgz Thank you, Thomas Witt -- Thomas Witt witt(a)acm.org

1 0

regex patches available
by John Maddock 03 May '04

03 May '04

All users of Boost.Regex-1.31.1 should be aware that there are now a set of patches available for this release - see https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=7586 for downloads. Issues fixed include: POSIX style regular expressions not behaving correctly with regex_grep. Non-greedy repeats not backtracking correctly in some cases. Backreferences cause some repeat operators to behave incorrectly. Some wide character expressions weren't getting correctly optimised, leading to thrown exceptions in trivial cases. Misc. compiler compatibility fixes. Regards, John Maddock

1 0

[boost] FC++ -- Formal Review Result
by Mat Marcus 05 Apr '04

05 Apr '04

The formal review for FC++ has completed. I am sorry to say that FC++ is not accepted into boost at this time. It may be possible for the library to be accepted in the future, but not without changes substantial enough to warrant an additional review. I will describe some possible strategies for later acceptance together with the rationale for my decision. Note that while the library is not accepted, the author has successfully established some of the merits of the functional programming paradigm and we should not require him to re-establish those same points in a future review. For that matter, I'm not convinced that we should have asked him to establish these points in the first place. * Rationale This was a very difficult decision, and I spent a long time sitting on the fence. I believe that the functional programming paradigm is important for C++ programmers, and that there are many interesting features available in FC++ such as lazy lists and the standard prelude functionality. In addition, though there was not a consensus amongst reviewers to accept (see Opinions of the Reviewers below), several boost library authors offered positive reviews of FC++. I finally managed to gather my thoughts and come to a decision -- thanks to all for your patience. In formulating my decision, I realized that one of the important questions to ask of a candidate boost library is: "Can I in good faith recommend to any C++ programmer with interest in domain X that they spend the time and effort to learn library Y and consider using it in relevant projects?" For FC++ I can not yet in good faith answer yes. I do think that it is worthwhile for *some* programmers to look at and would certainly consider pointing to FC++ in its present form from the boost web site as an "interesting third party library" if we maintained such links. But as I said I am not yet ready to put the boost "brand" on FC++. Why not? My evaluation was based on two main criteria, practicality and educational value, of which detailed accounts follow. ** Evaluation of Practicality Today FC++ is a largely monolithic library with a fair degree of overlap with other boost components. This led to a good deal of confusion/discussion during the review period. Such a state of affairs (monolith with substantial overlap) could conceivably be acceptable if there were clear problems for which FC++ was a uniquely suited practical solution. Exact Reals (see footnote *** below) notwithstanding, I don't believe that the *practical* value of FC++ as a *monolithic* embedded DSL in C++ supporting mixed paradigm programming has been satisfactorily established. [footnote ***: The existence of clients such as the Exact Real lib help demonstrate some degree of practicality. During the review I briefly examined the Exact Real site. This looked like an interesting application though I could not yet say how much practicality was demonstrated since, for example, the performance characteristics of lazy lists and constructive reals were not immediately clear to me. If FC++ is to be accepted on practical grounds potential users may want to be able to understand performance characteristics.] If the authors were to break FC++ into smaller pieces and should they participate in a future lambda, phoenix, FC++ merger then the above concerns would be addressed. It surely doesn't hurt that the authors of those other libraries expressed strong interest in the above direction. And as was pointed out in the review some of the ideas from FC++ might successfully be applied to other boost libraries such as function and/or bind. If FC++ was part of a single consistent set of FP components within boost then there would be good odds of achieving consensus to accept. The changes to bring this about would be of significant enough magnitude however that I would not be comfortable with provisional acceptance today -- a future review (or reviews of pieces are submitted independently) would be required. ** Evaluation of Educational Value Since boost is not necessarily restricted to purely practical libraries I also considered accepting FC++ into boost on the grounds that it provides an environment in which C++ programmers can learn more about and experiment with FP. FC++ enjoys some degree of success in this area. However I found it disturbing that during the review a number of traditional/imperative-style C++ programmers were just not "getting it" about FP. Perhaps a case could be made for accepting FC++ in its entirety on educational grounds after some of the improvements suggested by reviewers were implemented, e.g. improvements to the documentation and naming (useful in any case), the completion of some additional features such as Monads, or deeper documentation of the useful implementation techniques. But I must admit that I find this strategy less attractive, and I would urge you to try to break things up instead. One of the difficulties in finding acceptance on purely educational grounds might be characterized like this: if I was to recommend a way for an imperative programmer to learn more about functional programming today I would probably suggest a jump into an (OCa)ml, Haskell, or even a Lisp/Scheme environment. I am not sure that this I would recommend the FC++ environment for this purpose even with the changes suggested above. That is, I am not entirely convinced of the *purely educational value* of working with a functional programming DSL within C++. I really would prefer to see the FC++ ideas used in a practical mixed paradigm setting. * Opinions of the reviewers I was a bit concerned about the dearth of reviews during the first week so I decided to extend the review. The final number of reviews was still lower than I would have liked, but in the end I received approximately 4 no votes and 7 yes votes, with varying amounts of effort spent. Of the no votes, there was some support for acceptance after a later review, pending certain improvements. At the same time a number of the yes votes urged acceptance only after similar concerns were addressed. From this one could argue that there was near consensus that the community would be interested in accepting FC++ after these issues were addressed. The issues include the state of the documentation, the monolithic nature of the lib, and the incomplete nature of some components of the lib, e.g. monads. So I view some of the yes votes and no votes as differing mainly on whether to accept now with the above provisions or whether to require a second review after the above concerns were addressed. I spent some time vacillating between those options before finally settling on my decision to require a second review before acceptance. Given the significant nature of the requested changes I was only comfortable choosing the latter option. * Conclusion Though I am sorry not to be able to accept FC++ into boost today I would like to acknowledge its authors for the influence this library has had on other boost components. I strongly encourage you to keep working to bring the innovations from FC++ into boost in the future. I would also like to acknowledge Brian for his many creative contributions to the boost community and his thoughtful and professional posts. I am sure that I am not alone in saying thanks for all your efforts and I look forward to hearing more from you in the future. - Mat

1 0

Review Result: Indexed Set
by Pavel Vozenilek 04 Apr '04

04 Apr '04

Indexed set library by Joaquín Mª López Muñoz has been accepted into Boost. Thanks Joaquín for innovative and professional work and for keeping up during moments when feedback was rather low. Review of the library was very positive. Thanks to all people who spent time contributing. Several points to improve had been identified during review. Consistent names for the library were discussed and hopefully identified. Some points Joaquín did or plans to address: _________________________________________ FUNCTIONAL REQUESTS 1. Issue BOOST_STATIC_ERROR if duplicate tags. This I've already done in my local version. Works OK. 2. Extend operator== and familiy to support indices over elements of different types (Gary Powell). I've done it in my local version, no problems arose. 3. Improve efficiency of equal_range (Arkadiy). 4. Include bimap in the roadmap. 5. Include ranked indices in the roadmap. 6. Include serialization support in the roadmap (it's already there.) 8. compose_key and lex_compare promoted to the library (they are implemented in examples now.) No problem from my part. 9. Include a concepts section for multi-indexed containers. David accepted that this be delayed. STYLISTIC REQUESTS 1. Navigation bar in the docs. 2. Limit source code to 80 chars per row (already done.) 3. Limit source code in the docs to 80 chars per row. 4. Rename "far pointer" to "chained pointer" (?) 5. Other stylistic improvements that I've already applied. As for header organization, I'll move to a fine-grained policy. _________________________________________ New features and usage techniques are identified and will likely be implemented and documented. Care is taken keep the library easy to use. /Pavel PS: could someone try to run test "test_all_main.cpp" with VC 6.5 or 6.6. and report result exit code, please?

1 0

Review Result: Circular Buffer
by Pavel Vozenilek 23 Mar '04

23 Mar '04

The circular_buffer library by Jan Gaspar has been accepted into Boost. The reviews were helpful in finding at least one issue with the library and few ones with its documentation. Thanks to all reviewers for the time and effort! Post-review version 3.7 will be released before code gets into main CVS. Main points to be addressed: - issue of copy construction versus construct/destruct has been cleared (the problem was created by me) - documentation should list exception safety for every function - documentation may add some rationale on its internal data structures and their advantage over std::deque - portability problems should be solved - adaptor with notification when oldest element gets pushed out of bufer may be added Other points that may be considered: - name of data() function - existence of push_back(void) like functions - using new iterator adaptors - difference between resize/set_capacity may be more emphasized in docs, - other fixes/improvements suggested during review. Thanks for professional quality work, Jano. /Pavel

1 0

Formal Review: Indexed Set
by Pavel Vozenilek 19 Mar '04

19 Mar '04

The review of Indexed Set library, written by Joaquín M López Muñoz starts today (March 20) and runs for 10 days. Latest version (9.4) of the library is available on: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/indexed_set.zip (328 kB) What it is? indexed_set is generic, STL compliant container providing one or more views on its data. These views allow to use data sorted according to different criteria. Change in container data is automatically propagated into all views. How many views and what ordering is applied is specified in declarative way, as template parameter. What it is good for? - it can replace multiple collections of data and hand-written code keeping them in sync. - it can replace standard containers (as std::set or std::list) if these may not meet future reqirements. - it can serve as basic for other libraries. For example RTL (relational tables library) may use indexed_set to hold its data. Other features of indexed_set: - sorting can be performed on result of member function (similar to calculated indexes in RDBMS). - indexed_set can be used as 'wrapper' over other data structures, e.g you can see data in std::vector as being sorted in set-like structure (but without structures being synchronized). - many, many others ... Future development: - planned functionality is described on its own page in documentation. - indexed_set may also implement access to its data in the same way as std::deque, with random O(1) access History of the project: - it started as 'bimap' library more than year ago, - some two dozen iterations were released, - several Boost people expressed their interest or did suggest features. Boost-wide reusable parts of the library: - indexed_set includes (nearly verbatim) copy of Andrei Alexandresu ScopeGuard. It is intended as stop-gap until Boost wide library emerges. - maybe auto_space.hpp can be liften into utilities. Portability: - see document page for list of compilers and their issues - Can someone try to run tests under release mode of VC 6.5? We got different results with different machines. Word from the autor: "Thank you for reviewing indexed_set. There are several points, mostly concerning naming, that I'd like to be discussed during the review. You can find these at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/indexed_set_review_notes.html If you evaluate the library and deem it acceptable for Boost, please walk the extra mile and express your opinions about the issues brought forward in the review notes. Naming issues are quite sensitive, and I'd like to reach as general a consensus as possible." Your review comments are welcomed. Found problems and suggestions for documentation are highly sought. Requests for new features requests may shape way indexed_set will evolve in future. As naming questions can generate lot of mail-list traffic, I'll start separate thread to deal with them. /Pavel

1 0

Formal Review: Circular Buffer
by Pavel Vozenilek 05 Mar '04

05 Mar '04

The review of Jan Gaspar's Circular Buffer library starts today (March 5th) and runs for 10 days. Latest version of the library is available at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/circular_buffer_v3.6.zip What it is: Circular buffer (also known as ring or cyclic buffer) is container with fixed upper limit on number of elements inside. When capacity gets exhausted newly inserted elements will cause oldest elements to get dropped out. What makes the library Boost candidate: - it provides often used functionality, - it is STL compliant generic solution, - it is designed for CPU/memory efficiency, - it is fully documented and tested, - it contains extensive debug support, - it has been informally reviewed for long time. Discovered problems in code or in documentation, missing features, portability issues and finally opinion whether the library belongs to Boost is welcomed. /Pavel

1 0

FC++ Formal review is now in progress (2/13-2/23)
by Mat Marcus 13 Feb '04

13 Feb '04

The formal review of fcpp by Brian McNamara and Yannis Smaragdakis is now in progress, runiing from Friday February 13th at 12 noon, PST and and run to Monday, February 23rd, 12 noon PST. The library is currently available at <http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~yannis/fc++/boostpaper/> Here is a brief introduction to the library: FC++ is a library for doing functional programming in C++. The library provides a general framework to support various functional programming aspects, such as higher-order polymorphic functions, currying, lazy evaluation, and lambda. In addition to the framework, FC++ also provides a large library of useful functions and data types. The main utility of the library comes from its ability to implement functional programming designs, especially those which use higher-order polymorphic functions or lazy evaluation in significant ways. The library also contains a number of ancillary components that implement features like currying and lambda for function objects; these features are also useful in their own right. For information about submitting a Formal Review, see <http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm> Please try out the library and read the documentation and say whether or not you think the library should be accepted by Boost and why. Compiler notes: This library has been tested with icc7 and with gcc-3.1.1 (and various other gcc-3.x.y versions) on Solaris and Linux. The library is also likely to compile on VC++7.1 and Comeau (prior versions of the library succeeded with these compilers, but this particular snapshot has not been tested with them). The library covers a great deal of the C++ language and thus requires a high degree of standard conformance; compilers like gcc-2.95.x and VC++6 will not be able to compile the library. Getting started: The web page http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~yannis/fc++/boostpaper/ mentions all the basics: The zip file will expand into these subdirectories: fcpp/fcpp/ # the library (.hpp) files fcpp/fcpp_clients/ # the example (.cpp) files Running the examples just involves invoking the complier with the right #include paths; for example, # in the fcpp_clients directory g++ -I/path/to/boost -I../fcpp some_example.cpp There is also a gnu-style Makefile included with the clients (examples), which will compile all of the examples in batch (you will have to edit a tiny bit at the top of the Makefile). The examples in the clients directory are a mix of both (regression-type) tests cases which cover the features of the library and example applications which demonstrate some of the library's utility. The README file in the client directory gives a short explanation of some of the more interesting clients. The documentation at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~yannis/fc++/boostpaper/ provides a walkthrough and reference for most of the main features of the library. There are also some pointers out to other papers and documentation on the main FC++ web site: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~yannis/fc++/ Conformance to Boost guidelines: The library meets most of the requirements described at http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm Here are a few notable exceptions: - the current library headers are too "monolithic"; you #include "prelude.hpp" and suck in all of the library - some of the lambda internals should be rewritten to use MPL rather than hand-rolled metaprogramming code - only a few of the example programs utilize the Boost testing framework (to automate regression testing) Should the library be accepted into Boost, Brian will remedy these deficiencies. (If you notice other major problems along these lines, please bring them to Brian's attention during the review.) The Formal Review manager is Mat Marcus.

1 0

Boost release 1.31.0 is available
by Beman Dawes 09 Feb '04

09 Feb '04

Boost release 1.31.0 is available. See the www.boost.org home page for latest news about what's in the release. Or go right to http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=7586 to download. Thanks to everyone who helped with this release. The folks that run the regression tests and review the release candidates get a special pat on the back. Due to compiler updates, three shipping and one soon-to-ship C++ compiler now pass almost all of Boost's regression tests. A year ago, no compilers could do that. --Beman PS: Sorry if this is a duplicate. Several people have reported they never got the original announcement.

1 0

Boost release 1.31.0 is available
by Beman Dawes 05 Feb '04

05 Feb '04

Boost release 1.31.0 is available. See the www.boost.org home page for latest news about what's in the release. Or go right to http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=7586 to download. Thanks to everyone who helped with this release. The folks that run the regression tests and review the release candidates get a special pat on the back. Due to compiler updates, three shipping and one soon-to-ship C++ compiler now pass almost all of Boost's regression tests. A year ago, no compilers could do that. --Beman

1 0