- Boost-users - lists.boost.org

[release] Boost 1.72.0 Release Candidate 1
by Marshall Clow 05 Dec '19

05 Dec '19

The first release candidates for the 1.72.0 release are now available at: <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.72.0/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: fcd8b598bc63ae7bbd3e72635d95b9d749ef65f4e5342c24445ea1fb9d417ac3 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.7z f6a527a261e273bfd2b6161d359ab9fb53c1795239c696f501a62f575cd30bda boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.bz2 8e591146d39e8cb45c74540aae26ae6321b1e83ab1b12e236dd117f93475ceb9 boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.tar.gz 3425e7bfd49a6ad70aa7e82c1c740f7821eb58d14604b133be4dfbcdc0c58e3a boost_1_72_0_b1_rc1.zip As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. -- The Boost Release Managers

1 4

[review][fixed_string] FixedString review starts today
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 05 Dec '19

05 Dec '19

The Boost formal review of Krystian Stasiowski and Vinnie Falco's FixedString library starts today November 25 and extends up to December 4. Description FixedString provides a dynamically resizable string of characters with compile-time fixed capacity and contiguous embedded storage in which the characters are placed within the string object itself. Its API closely resembles that of std::string. Repo and docs GitHub repository: https://github.com/18/fixed_string Online docs: https://18.github.io/doc/fixed_string Review questions 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 finally, every review should answer this question: - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? I invite you to submit your review, either publicly to the developers or the users lists, or else, if for whatever reason you don't want to go public, directly to me. Thank you for investing your time on reviewing Krystian and Vinnie's work and for contributing to the advancement of Boost. Best regards, Joaquín M López Muñoz Review manager for candidate Boost.FixedString

4 3

PDF document download?
by Hong Xu 01 Dec '19

01 Dec '19

Hi all, It seems like the PDF documentation link on the download page is significantly outdated: https://www.boost.org/users/download/ In the link, the latest PDF documentation is 1.56.0. Is there any plan to update this? Thanks, Hong

1 0

Write Property Tree JSON on a single line
by aCPlusPlusDeveloper 29 Nov '19

29 Nov '19

Is it possible to force the boost::propertytree::write_json method to write the entire json tree on a single line (not human readable at all but to save file size)? Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

1 0

Interest in a C++20 Unit Testing Framework?
by Krzysztof Jusiak 27 Nov '19

27 Nov '19

Hi, I was wondering whether there is any interest in exploring a C++20 single header/single module, macro-free Unit Testing Framework with no dependencies? Github: https://github.com/boost-experimental/ut Additional links: - Try it online: https://godbolt.org/z/uVDxkW - Benchmarks: https://github.com/boost-experimental/ut#benchmarks - How it works?: https://github.com/boost-experimental/ut#how-it-works Thanks, Kris

10 20

Building with CMake?
by Robert Dailey 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

I see that individual repositories like boostorg/filesystem on Github have a CMakeLists.txt. But the boostorg/boost super repo doesn't have a root CMakeLists.txt. Either this doesn't follow standard CMake structure or there's no way to build with CMake globally instead of bjam. How can I build the boost libraries with CMake?

9 15

Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Interest in a C++20 Unit Testing Framework?
by Krzysztof Jusiak 24 Nov '19

24 Nov '19

I see your point, but I'm not advocating here for providing multiple ways of doing the same thing as I agree it might be confusing although I'd also argue that it's already a case with boost.test for example (single header/static/shared library or BOOST_TEST, BOOST_CHECK, BOOST_CHECK_EQ accomplish pretty much the same things but there are also a trade-offs here so it depends) Also, having a possibility for users to do so is valuable IMHO but I wouldn't expose any macros from the library. On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 9:55 AM Hans Dembinski <hans.dembinski(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 23. Nov 2019, at 04:31, Krzysztof Jusiak via Boost < > boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > > However, with [Boost].UT there is nothing stopping anyone from using > simple > > macros (one-lines) to achieve other frameworks syntax > > The good bit about it is that it's an opt-in 'feature' as opposed to > being > > the only available option (see example below [1]). > > But then you have split in the user base, some will use the macros others > will use the macro-free syntax, and both will have difficulty in > understanding the code of other. > >

1 0

Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Interest in a C++20 Unit Testing Framework?
by Vinnie Falco 24 Nov '19

24 Nov '19

On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 9:49 AM Hans Dembinski via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > both will have difficulty in understanding the code of other. BOOST_TEST(b) What could this possibly mean? /me scratches head Regards

1 0

boost::regex (implementation question)
by John Emmas 23 Nov '19

23 Nov '19

Yesterday I downloaded boost v1.71.0 The file 'regex/v4/cregex.hpp' contains declarations for functions like 'regexecA' and 'regexecW'. There are similar declarations for regfree, regcomp & regerror. But where are the implementations for those functions? Or is my own app expected to provide them? Many thanks, John Emmas

2 4

Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Interest in a C++20 Unit Testing Framework?
by mateusz＠loskot.net 23 Nov '19

23 Nov '19

<quote author='Boost - Users mailing list'> (CC'ed to boost-users) On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 21:53, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:24 AM Krzysztof Jusiak via Boost-users > <boost-users(a)lists.boost.org>> > > I was wondering whether there is any interest in exploring > > a C++20 single header/single module, macro-free Unit > > Testing Framework with no dependencies? > > I have no interest in a library that requires C++20, especially > considering that C++20 is not even official yet but also because once > C++20 is released, there will be hardly any users for many years. This > project seems very much like it was written "just because", to use the > latest language features, rather than for pragmatic reasons. I don't > see anything compelling to use it over Boost.LightweightTest for > example. I had a look at the current documentation and examples, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only sceptical about it. My opinion is very similar to what Hans, Raffi and Vinnie explained. Macros in testing and benchmarking frameworks are kosher, in fact, they can be very helpul to organize and structure large amount of tests that in turn makes it easier to search and browse through the code. I can't imagine how any of the modern IDE's will support the string-driven syntax. As a long time maintainer of SOCI library, I'm no stranger to the syntax-first library development [1], still, I find the UT's string-based test cases approach as an interesting curiosity with very little practical value. (It falls into similar drawer as the (over)use of emoji in commit messages on GitHub :)). Boost is known as a C++ guinea pigs playground, so any library can make it in. If it does, I just hope Boost will not allow to adopt the UT as a test framework of choice of any/too many of its libraries. [1] https://www.drdobbs.com/database/a-simple-oracle-call-interface/184405930?p… Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users(a)lists.boost.org https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users </quote> Quoted from: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Interest-in-a-C-20-Unit-Testing-Framewor… _____________________________________ Sent from http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com

1 0