March 2013 - Boost - lists.boost.org

Specific-Width Floating-Point Typedefs
by Paul A. Bristow 04 May '13

04 May '13

There has recently been some discussion on improving portability of programs using floating-point. Drawing on the benefits from definition of typedefs for int32_t, int64_t, int128_t . we have drawn up a proposal to add similar typedefs for floating-point. Our draft document (in both html and pdf) is at https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/precision/libs/precision/doc/html/i… https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/precision/libs/precision/doc/precis… We hope to propose this to the SG6 Numerics subgroup of WG21 ISO C++ standards body. But would welcome comments from Boosters to help us improve this proposal. Thank you. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow(a)hetp.u-net.com

8 17

Voronoi benchmark update
by Sebastien Loriot 03 May '13

03 May '13

Hello, I'm involved in the CGAL Project, and saw the Voronoi benchmark. It would be nice if you could change the CGAL code slightly, as it is not as bad as it currently seems. Attached is the diff to the trunk of boost. Concerning the Voronoi diagram of points, a CGAL user, would use the Delaunay_triangulation_2 class. Concerning the Voronoi diagram of segments (that do not intersect) one would make a better choice for number types and traits classes. Also one better first inserts the endpoints and then the segments (I agree, this should definitely go into a member function). Admittedly our examples could be better. Cheers, Sebastien

3 4

[GSOC] Are we going to participate?
by Antony Polukhin 02 May '13

02 May '13

Hi all, Today starts Google Summer of Code. Is Boost community will become one of the mentoring organizations? What project ideas are we proposing? (As for me, I'd love to see unique_ptr+unique_array implemented using Boost.Move; C++11 features support for MPL, Fusion, Graph, Bind, Optional; BTree library; library for getting system info) -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

16 24

[log] Permission to merge to trunk
by Andrey Semashev 20 Apr '13

20 Apr '13

Hi, I'd like to ask for permission to merge Boost.Log v2 to Boost trunk. The library has passed the review back in 2010 and was provisionally accepted [1]. It has been reworked since then, and in a few recent posts I described the changes [2][3]. [1] http://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2010/03/0256.php [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/237748 [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/239313

16 43

What Should we do About Boost.Test?
by Dave Abrahams 16 Apr '13

16 Apr '13

Hi All, I was just going through Boost.Test to try to figure out how to teach it, and while it looks to have substantial value, it is also in quite a mess. It contains loads of features that are exercised in the examples/ directory but neither included in any of the tests nor documented. There are facilities for command-line argument parsing! There are "decorators" that turn on/off features for test cases. There is support for mock objects! These are cool and sometimes necessary features, but who knew? The third tutorial page (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/libs/test/doc/html/tutorials/new-year-…) has a glaring typo in the code examples: "BOOST_AUTO_EST_CASE". There's no reference manual at all. There are nearly-identical files in the examples/ directory called "est_example1.cpp" and "test_example1.cpp" (Did the "t" key on someone's keyboard break?) I could go on, but where would I stop? I don't know what to do about this. Because of the lack of redundancy (i.e. tests and documentation), it's hard to tell whether this library is correct or even to define what "correct" should mean. It seems like, as long as the code is incompletely / incorrectly documented and tested, it's just someone's personal coding project that we happen to keep shipping with Boost, and not really a library for general use. This situation reflects poorly on Boost as a whole and the fact that it centers around a _testing_ library, which is concerned with robustness... well, let's just say that the irony isn't lost on me. I don't mean this posting as an attack on Gennadiy in any way, but I think the situation is unacceptable and therefore am opening a discussion about what should happen. As a straw man, I'll make this suggestion: - Boost.Test is officially deprecated in the next release - Its documentation, such as it is, is removed from the release after that - Meanwhile, other tests in Boost that use this library are rewritten to use a different mechanism - The code is removed from Boost thereafter I am not at all attached to removing Boost.Test from Boost, but IMO rescuing it would require a significant new investment of time and energy from people who are committed to bringing the library up to par with the rest of what we do. (I seriously thought about volunteering for this myself, but realistically speaking, I don't have the time, and volunteering for something you can't actually do is worse than not volunteering at all.) Even if volunteers show up, I'd suggest proceeding with the plan above, subject to reversal at any time the work actually gets done. Thoughts? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost

34 85

GSoC 2013 - Boost registration?
by Paul A. Bristow 09 Apr '13

09 Apr '13

http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/events/google/gsoc2013 March 18: 19:00 UTC Mentoring organizations can begin submitting applications to Google. March 29: 19:00 UTC Mentoring organization application deadline. Just checking that Boost has/is registering? Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow(a)hetp.u-net.com

3 3

future<>::then() Error returning future<void> (on trunk)
by Fernando Pelliccioni 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

Hi Vicente, hi all, I noticed that in the trunk there is a implementation of future<>::then(). Thank you very much for your efforts to implement it! The following example, compiles OK boost::future<int> f1 = boost::async([]() { return 123; }); f1.then([](boost::future<int> const& f) { return std::string(""); }); But this one fails to compile: boost::future<int> f1 = boost::async([]() { return 123; }); f1.then([](boost::future<int> const& f) { }); Here future<>::then() have to returns future<void> like ... boost::async([]() { }); Am I right? On the other hand, have you taken into account the following paper? http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3451.pdf Regards, Fernando Pelliccioni.

3 5

Review managers wanted for augmented data structures
by Vadim Stadnik 06 Apr '13

06 Apr '13

Hi all, At present, neither Boost library nor STL provides containers using augmented data structures. I suggest that the Boost community consider solving the challenging problem – how to extend STL by integrating advanced data structures. Is there an alternative of not integrating advanced data structures into STL? IMO, no, since it is equivalent to “STL must go”. C++ cannot ignore performance benefits provided by these data structures. On the other hand, advanced data structures can be implemented in many programming languages and this will make C++ less competitive. Augmented red-black trees could have been included in the very first version of STL. Why is it difficult and has not been done yet? The major obstacle for the integration is the C++ standard specification of computational complexities of single operations for containers and iterators. Augmented trees are non-standard due to different performance guarantees. At the same these data structures are beneficial for complex algorithms, since they offer a wider set of more efficient operations compared to standard containers. The typical performance improvement for one operation is O(log N) against O(N). For less efficient operations these trees normally provide running time O(log N) against O(1), which is good enough for many applications. The C++ STL will be under pressure as long as there are new data structures that offer better running time for user algorithms. Asymptotically, the main parameter that determines the running time of an algorithm is the total computational cost (to simplify the discussion we omit the effect of locality of reference). By definition, the total computational cost is the sum of costs of single operations multiplied by their frequencies. For a general purpose library, such as STL, it is impossible at the design stage to know frequencies of all container and iterator operations required in all possible user algorithms. A more reasonable and practical approach to STL would be to provide a wide set of interchangeable containers and data structures with different performance guarantees and allow programmers to make decisions about the most suitable containers for specific applications. Relatively small frequencies of inefficient operations do not have significant effect on the total computational cost of an algorithm. Thus, in principle, containers and iterators can provide even inefficient operation in order to support more unified interfaces and to improve the generality. The replacement of interchangeable containers offers the advantage of low development cost solutions to performance bottlenecks that arise due to enhancement requests and/or an increase in the number of elements processed by a user algorithm. Also, I’d like to note that the representation of sequences using augmented trees is a frequent point of confusion and probably the fact that was overlooked in the development of previous versions of STL. The general description of the method of augmenting data structures is given in the section 14.2 of this book T.H. Cormen, C.E. Leiserson, R.L. Rivest and C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd Edition, MIT Press and McGraw-Hill, 2001. The specific application of this method is provided for order statistic trees and interval trees. Unfortunately, there is no example of a sequence that stores unordered elements. Probably for this reason augmented red-black trees are often considered to be an improvement of search trees only. The efficient representation of sequences by the described red-black trees follows from the fact that augmenting by the counter of children nodes supports efficient mapping from non-negative integers into container elements. It works both for ordered and unordered containers with unique and multiple elements or keys. There are two libraries in the Boost review schedule: http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html "STL Extensions" and "Countertree". None of them has as yet a review manager. The order of the reviews may not be significant. It is more important that at least one library pass the review. This would help integrating other advanced data structures. Are there Boost experts who could volunteer to take responsibility of review manager for any of these two libraries? Regards, Vadim Stadnik

4 9

generate algorithm
by Fabian Bösch 03 Apr '13

03 Apr '13

Dear Boost community I am developing a library which extends the STL generate algorithm. It's aim is to improve performance for highly optimized (e.g. vectorized) generation mechanisms while it retains the same interface. This is especially useful when dealing with random number generation as there are several libraries (e.g. Intel MKL or AMD ACML) which provide means to generate a block of random values at once. However, the current STL generate algorithm is not able to cope with such "range generation". Is there any interest in a such a library for Boost? Cheers, Fabian Bösch

4 5

traits classes vs. metafunctions
by Stefan Strasser 01 Apr '13

01 Apr '13

Hi everyone, are there any guidelines for boost libraries on when to use traits classes and when to use a metafunction for each member of a would-be traits class? I've seen both in boost libraries. c++11 uses traits classes (iterator_traits, pointer traits, ...), but Abrahams and Gurtovoy [1] argue that traits classes ("traits blobs") should be avoided "at all costs" because they are an unnecessary concatenation of multiple metafunctions into one metafunction with multiple return values. in practice, this means that if a single 'traits class member' aka 'metafunction result' ought to differ from the defaults, the entire traits class has to be reimplemented by the user, not only the metafunction whose result ought to differ from the default. on the other hand, asking a user to implement 5 or more metafunctions is much more tedious than implementing a traits class. possibility 1) template<...> struct property1 : mpl::bool_<...>{}; template<...> struct property2 : mpl::bool_<...>{}; template<...> struct property3 : mpl::bool_<...>{}; 2) template<...> struct ..._traits{ typedef mpl::bool_<...> property1; typedef mpl::bool_<...> property2; typedef mpl::bool_<...> property3; }; you could provide both, but in which "direction"? does a traits class refer to metafunctions, or do metafunctions refer to a traits class? a) template<...> struct ..._traits{ typedef typename property1<...>::type property1; typedef typename property2<...>::type property2; typedef typename property3<...>::type property3; }; b) template<...> struct property1 : ..._traits<...>::property1{} template<...> struct property2 : ..._traits<...>::property2{} template<...> struct property3 : ..._traits<...>::property3{} which is accessed when "calling" the metafunction? it seems to me that metafunctions are better for the "caller" and traits classes are better for the implementor of the traits/metafunctions. in my case, the caller is a library and the implementor is the user, so you might choose a traits class over metafunctions. but what if a new member is added that wasn't there before (like "property4"). the implementor of an (old) traits class could not have known about the new member, so accessing the new member (by the library) will result in an error, while a new metafunction "property4" could simply return a default. should new properties of traits classes only be accessed after making sure they exist, using SFINAE? there isn't a precedent for this in c++11. only new traits classes were introduced, but no new members of already existing traits classes. should metafunctions always be preferred? why did c++11 choose traits classes over metafunctions, even though the concept of a metafunction was introduced in c++11 (<type_traits>). Thanks [1] Abrahams; Gurtovoy: C++ Template Metaprogramming, 2.2 Metafunctions

7 14