April 2019 - Boost - lists.boost.org

Variant2 review
by Phil Endecott 11 Apr '19

11 Apr '19

Dear All, Here is my brief review of Peter Dimov's proposed Boost.Variant2. Sorry that this is not a particularly thorough review. I have read the docs, scanned the code, and followed the discussion on the mailing list; I have not tried to compile or use it. I have recently been using the original Boost.Variant for the first time. I actually started writing code based on std::variant, but then realised that I don't have support for it on one C++14-only platform, so changed to Boost.Variant. It's unfortunate that Boost.Variant has a somewhat different interface from std::variant, so it would be useful to have a Boost variant that is (more) compatible with std::variant. It would also be useful if it were somewhat backward compatible with the old Boost.Variant. The proposed Boost.Variant2 is compatible with std::variant; could some thin layer of compatibility be added to make it possible to port from Boost.Variant code? Specifically, the differences I have noticed are apply_visitor vs. visit and get(V*) vs. get_if. In my case, my stored types are typically raw pointers or small POD structs; none of these can throw during construction/assignment so the complicated arguments about exception guarantees are not applicable. Personally for my current application I'd be happy with a simpler variant that requires noexcept types, or disables assignment for types that might throw, or just doesn't offer an exception safety guarantee. Ideally, perhaps a Boost.Variants *library* should provide a selection of different variants with different features? That leads to the question of naming; we have boost::variant, boost::variant2 and std::variant and those names tell us nothing about how they differ. I'm unsure how or if this can be improved; I'm not suggesting that variant2 should be renamed variant_never_empty_maybe_double_size! But maybe the long-name of the library, i.e. what people will see when they look at the list of Boost libraries, could say "Never empty variant" rather than "Variant 2"? Prior to the review I was familiar with the issue of dynamic allocation, the fact that is is needed in some cases by some variant implementations, and the desire to avoid it. However I was not aware of the alternative of storing two copies of the union, doubling the size of the variant. Much of my work is with memory-constrained systems and unknowingly using twice as much memory as expected would be very undesirable. (I noticed Niall Douglas' comment earlier today "There is nothing wrong, *whatsoever*, with a variant which is sized the largest of its possible states multiplied by two" - I strongly disagree with that.) I'd like to at least get a warning if that were going to happen. A specific concern is that I might accidentally get this fallback due to forgetting to write "noexcept" somewhere (e.g. when using types from older code). On the subject of size, I note that the index is stored in an int, while virtually all uses would surely need fewer than 256 (or certainly 2^16) alternatives. Of course changing the index to uint16_t would not actually help on many platforms due to structure alignment requirements. This makes me wonder about a specialised variant for pointers that uses the spare bits in (most/some) 64-bit pointers to store the variant index. This could usefully be part of a variants *library*. I read Andrzej Krzemienski's comments about the documentation and largely agree with them - though I would say that this library is close enough to std::variant that perhaps the right thing to do is simply to say "go and read about std::variant and then come back here to see the differences". Peter posted a link to some benchmark results last week; those numbers are encouraging and it is also good to know that Peter actually made the effort to measure them! I do wonder how a "trivial" variant supporting only noexcept types would compare, though. Boost.Variant has something called polymorphic_get. I am unclear whether Boost.Variant2 (and/or std::variant) somehow support this functionality. The situation re. expected is unfortunate. I believe really the review should have waited for it to be completed. Peter's comment that if it is decided that it needs to be reviewed then he would remove it and never resubmit it was ... surprisingly undiplomatic? I have always found it a bit odd that Boost requires a thorough review of an initial library submission but nothing at all for later additions. In summary: - I believe the library should be accepted. - It would be great if some compatibility features with Boost.Variant could be added, to make it possible for users of that older library to transition more easily. That is not a condition for acceptance. - I would love to have some way to get a warning or error if the double storage mode had been triggered, or to disable that mode (with an error). - It would be great to see some alternative variants, with different features / trade-offs, included in the library. Ideally, naming of types and headers should allow for that. I'm not suggesting that Peter should be personally expected to supply these alternatives, but perhaps he would accept offerings from others. - I think we should allow Peter to "slip in" his expected when it is ready; I say this largely because Peter has a long history with Boost. Future review managers should try to avoid situations like this arising. Regards, Phil.

7 18

[release] Boost 1.70.0 Release Candidate 2 available
by Marshall Clow 11 Apr '19

11 Apr '19

The second release candidate for the 1.70.0 release are now available at: <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.70.0/source/> Changes since rc1: * Boost.Config changes to work better with msvc-14.2 * Boost.Beast bug fixes * Boost.Move bug fix * Boost.Math non-ascii characters removed from header file The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 882b48708d211a5f48e60b0124cf5863c1534cd544ecd0664bb534a4b5d506e9 ./boost_1_70_0_rc2.tar.gz 430ae8354789de4fd19ee52f3b1f739e1fba576f0aded0897c3c2bc00fb38778 ./boost_1_70_0_rc2.tar.bz2 48f379b2e90dd1084429aae87d6bdbde9670139fa7569ee856c8c86dd366039d ./boost_1_70_0_rc2.zip ae2bb1b35d1f238e72e3f819b42336f4bd27c9ed2092aab5d87818ccb0c9161a ./boost_1_70_0_rc2.7z 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

3 5

Problem with generating file_descriptor suing existing pipe file descriptor
by Russell West 10 Apr '19

10 Apr '19

Our program just installed version 69 of Boost and I am running into a compile issue that I am not sure how to resolve. Following is the associated section of C++ code that I am unable to figure out the changes to get it to compile. int filedes[2]; if ( pipe(filedes) == 0) { using namespace boost::iostreams; stream<file_descriptor> results(filedes[0], close_handle); .... .... } The last provided line of code does not compile with a no matching function for call to 'boost::iostreams::file_descriptor::file_descriptor(int&, file_descriptor_flags&)' error. I noticed in the version of the boost file_descriptor.hpp loaded and being used the following exists: #ifdef BOOST_IOSTREAMS_WINDOWS file_descriptor(int fd, file_descriptor_flags); #endif The associated application attempting to be built and deployed is only for servers running the Linux operation system so BOOST_IOSTREAMS_WINDOWS is not enabled, causing the above constructor not to be available. The other constructor available is file_descriptor(handle_type fd, file_descriptor_flags); but I can not figure out how to generate a detail::file_handle from the available int file descriptor generated from above pipe command. Will it cause any issues enabling BOOST_IOSTREAMS_WINDOWS so the required constructor will be available? Thanks ahead of time for your time and feedback. Russell West

2 1

Re: [boost] [Boost-GIL] Image Processing Algorithms
by Mateusz Loskot 10 Apr '19

10 Apr '19

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 18:54, Amir Ali <amirqadir(a)live.com> wrote: > > I really want to do this project even if I am not considered for GSOC. > I am still willing to do it on my own with guidance and supervision from any mentor. There are two mentors who will mentor three students in total. So, we can not offer any supervision to more projects. You are welcome to post your questions to the boost or boost-gil lists, or ask on Gitter room or the Slack channels as any user of / contributor to Boost libraries can do. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

1 0

[Boost-GIL] Image Processing Algorithms
by Amir Ali 10 Apr '19

10 Apr '19

Hi, I am looking for someone to mentor me for my project that is to implement image processing algorithms in Boost-GIL. Here’re some of the algorithms I am aiming to make. Mathematical Morphology (Dilation, Erosion, Opening, Closing) Filters (High pass Filters, Low Pass Filter which includes Gaussian etc) And Other Image enhancement basic algorithms. Regards Amir

2 1

[variant2] Andrzej's review -- documentation
by Andrzej Krzemienski 10 Apr '19

10 Apr '19

Hi Everyone, This is the review of the documentation of variant2. First, the docs assume that the user is already familiar with std::variant or boost::variant, and the introductory part only highlights the difference from std::variant. It does not even mention that variant<X, Y> always stores either X or Y. "Type-safe discriminated union (variant) type," sounds arcane to novices. Notation variant<T…> is also confusing to someone who encounters variant for the first time. There is no initial example. No mention of visit() which is the most important part of the interface. Compare this with Boost.Variant docs: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_69_0/doc/html/variant.html I do not think the library should assume this. Boost libraries are characteristic of documentation that introduces potential users to the problem domain and gives a sort of tutorial that shows how to use the library. I recommend doing the same for variant2. This library does a lot of contortions to avoid the valueless state, but does not describe what the motivation for it is. The docs also do not give a sense of what performance (spacial and runtime) trade offs this library does. For instance, we do not know if the double-buffer scenario th second buffer is within variant's storage or on the heap. Or we do not know about secret moves that the library does internally, which gives surprising behavior to the users that store non-movable types in variant. Consider the following example: ``` struct X {}; struct Guard { explicit Guard(int) {} Guard(Guard&&) = delete; }; variant<X, Guard> v {}; v.emplace<Guard>(1); ``` This works fine with std::variant, but fails to compile with variant2::variant, because the latter requires all the alternative types, at least in one implementaiton of the never-empty trick, to be move-constructible. But this requirement is never listed in either global requirements for alternative types stored in variant, or in the specification of functions `emplace()`. Here's a wandbox example: https://wandbox.org/permlink/hGbRtgzpUrpF0ODy The Reference part of the docs is really good and detailed. Some minor "bug reports" follow. In the specification of functions types `T0` and `Ti` are used, but `T0` or `Ti` are never defined. Wording in the C++ Standard also refers to `T0` and `Ti`, but also provides a definition: In the descriptions that follow, let i be in the range [0, sizeof...(Types)), > and Ti be the ith type in Types. > <http://eel.is/c++draft/variant.ctor#1.sentence-1> > See http://eel.is/c++draft/variant.ctor#1 A similar definition should be put in variant2's documentation. Noexcept specifications use mp_all. this assumes that users of variant2 must be familiar with Boost.mp11. I recommend removing the reference to mp_all and instead use something similar to what the Standard does: http://eel.is/c++draft/variant.ctor#11 Specification of function `emplace<I>()`: It says: > > On exception: If the list of alternatives contains monostate, the > contained value is either unchanged, or monostate{}; > In what situation on exception is the contained value left unchanged? This question applies to the next bullet as well. The specification also doesn't mention that `.emplace<I>()` requires Ti to be move-constructible in some cases. It also says: Throws: Nothing unless the initialization of the new contained value throws. Which sounds strange, because it does throw something. In other places you use "Throws: Any exception thrown by the initialization of the contained value.", which makes more sense. Also, the Standard uses, "Throws: Any exception thrown during the initialization of the contained value. <http://eel.is/c++draft/variant.mod#11.sentence-1>": http://eel.is/c++draft/variant.mod#11 swap(): What does it throw and when? Other functions specify it but this one does not. get<I>(): Specification says, > > If v.index() is I, returns a reference to the object stored in the > variant. Otherwise, throws bad_variant_access. > This means that if I provide an index that is far greater than `sizeof...(T)`, the program should compile fine and throw an exception at run-time. This is not what the implementation does: I get a compile-time error, which is good, but inconsistent with the docs. They need an additional "Requires:" clause. visit(): I think it is underspecified. It is not immediately clear that the first parameter is the visitor and the remaining ones are variants. Parameter names F and V do not convey this clearly. Either use Visitor and Variants... or provide a longer description, even if informal. The docs really should contain an example of `visit()` somewhere. According to the specs, the following should work: ``` void f() {} variant2::visit(f); ``` which is not incorrect, but strange. The std::variant also provides a second overload of `visit` that explicitly defines the return type: http://eel.is/c++draft/variant.visit This overload is not present in variant2. But this fact is not listed in the initial section of the docs that lists the differences between the two libraries. Regards, &rzej;

2 6

[variant2] Comments on documentation
by Bjorn Reese 10 Apr '19

10 Apr '19

The overview states that "variant<T...> is not trivial when all contained types are trivial". Why not? Is this an advantage somehow or an unfortunate limitation? Why is there no tutorial? Why is there no design rationale? Change "variant_npos = -1" into "variant_npos = unspecified" Add a comment about the purpose of valuesless_by_exception(). Without such a comment, the function seems very odd on a "never valueless variant type." The destructor should be marked as noexcept.

4 8

[variant2] Review - Review period extended until April 15
by Michael Caisse 09 Apr '19

09 Apr '19

Hi all - The review period for Boost.Variant2 has bee extended to April 15. Thank you to those who have participated so far. There has been a fair amount of discussion about the merits of never valueless. A core design _feature_ of Variant2 is never valueless. You may have made different trade-offs. Understanding motives makes sense but in this review we are not trying to change this basic design choice. This paper by Peter discusses valueless variants some and may be useful reading: <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0308r0.html> If you haven't started your review yet, you have time! Reviews ranging from detailed discussions of inner workings to a user-perspective of the library and documentation are all helpful. I personally believe we need more user-based reviews in Boost. So, feeling sheepish about reviewing? Don't! Your review is important in the process. Here is one more motivation if you are on the fence ... Peter's code is a joy to read. The library is extremely clean and the code is accessible. There might be all kinds of things you learn from reading the source. Thank you again community for staying involved. We get great libraries when people ask questions, review, and provide input to everything from the docs to the design. Happy coding! michael -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com

1 0

GSOC 2019 proposal
by Siddhartha Sen 09 Apr '19

09 Apr '19

Once the proposal is ready, where do I officially submit the pdf?

2 1

Re: [boost] [release] Boost 1.70.0 Release Candidate 1 available
by Ion Gaztañaga 09 Apr '19

09 Apr '19

On 07/04/2019 15:07, Rainer Deyke via Boost-users wrote: > On 07.04.19 14:13, Marshall Clow via Boost-users wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 10:53 AM Rainer Deyke via Boost-users < >> boost-users(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: >> >>> On 04.04.19 16:27, Marshall Clow via Boost-users wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> boost::movelib::adaptive_merge continues to be broken if >>> iterator_traits<RandIt>::size_type != std::size_t. This breaks >>> boost::container::flat_map when cross-compiling for MacOS. I have >>> previously reported this error here. >>> >>> I consider this a critical error - as in, I won't be able to upgrade to >>> Boost 1.70 at all unless this error is fixed for the release. >>> >> >> This is https://github.com/boostorg/move/issues/25, correct? > > Yes. Sorry for note replying earlier, I was on a trip. The fix is not complicated but several files need to be modified. Committed to develop: https://github.com/boostorg/move/commit/bfdfca0b88fe1cf4e67b42fcacd5e126e93… @Rainer: I've checked this fix in several msvc and gcc's locally. The error report does not contain any example for the bug, so I don't know if I've fixed your use case. I don't know if we are still on time for 1.70. Best, Ion

4 5

[variant2] request to extend the review period
by Andrzej Krzemienski 08 Apr '19

08 Apr '19

Michael, Peter, Would it be possible to extend the review period? I may only be able to devote more time to the review on Thursday, so if it was possible to extend the review at least till 12th, I might have a chance to get it done. I suspect, I might be not the only one in this situation. Regards, &rzej;

1 0

Re: [boost] variant - off topic
by Bjorn Reese 08 Apr '19

08 Apr '19

On 4/3/19 11:27 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote: > d) insert your own use case here. That is, look at your own usages of > assignment to these types and see if there is not an easy way to > re-factor your code to avoid assignment. Such refactoring is difficult for state machines where you use a variant to denote the current state.

4 9

Enabling spectre mitigation in boost libraries
by Riff J 08 Apr '19

08 Apr '19

Hi everyone, I am a developer from Microsoft and currently using boost in our project. We recently get noticed by our security team, that the boost library we use, are not compiled with spectre mitigation (/Qspectre) enabled. Since boost is super powerful, it might not be a good idea to write our own or maintain our own version, so we are reaching out for help. Could anyone please help see if we could enable /Qspectre option in the official build of boost? And here is the vcblog about the spectre mitigation, if anyone is interested: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2018/01/15/spectre-mitigations-in-m… . And since this is the first time I use this mail list, please let me know, if I didn't use it correctly or anything I should pay attention to. Thanks a lot, Riff

10 22

[gsoc19] Boost.Geometry Delaunay triangulation and Voronoi diagrams
by Georgios Venizelos 08 Apr '19

08 Apr '19

Hello, I would like to undertake the Delaunay/Voronoi project in Boost.Geometry library. I have already shared my proposal on GSoC through Google Docs. I think that Delaunay triangulation is a process that has many applications, so it is useful to have such a process implemented in Boost libraries. Main focus of the program would be to implement Delaunay and Voronoi for Cartesian coordinates in 2 and 3 dimensions. If finished early, this could extend either in higher dimensions or in other coordinate types. Would anyone be interested in mentoring such a GSoC project? With respect, Georgios Venizelos --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

Re: [boost] Enabling spectre mitigation in boost libraries
by Kenneth Porter 08 Apr '19

08 Apr '19

On 4/6/2019 9:46 AM, John Maddock via Boost wrote: > One thing we could look at for future releases would be to provide > differently-named binaries for /Qspectre. Anyone else have thoughts > on that? I just looked at the libraries available via the Visual Studio installer and I see this in my installation (using atls as an example MS-supplied library): C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio\2019\Community\VC\Tools\MSVC\14.20.27508\atlmfc\lib\spectre\x64\atls.lib C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio\2019\Community\VC\Tools\MSVC\14.20.27508\atlmfc\lib\spectre\x86\atls.lib C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio\2019\Community\VC\Tools\MSVC\14.20.27508\atlmfc\lib\x64\atls.lib C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio\2019\Community\VC\Tools\MSVC\14.20.27508\atlmfc\lib\x86\atls.lib That may give some guidance as to how MS can package the Boost libraries for internal distribution.

1 0

Re: [boost] [variant2] Andrzej's review -- design
by Mike 08 Apr '19

08 Apr '19

> Going back to variant, in one case, we are defining an empty state, which > forces the user to provide explicit handling for that state, *everywhere*. You keep repeating that the user would have to explicitly handle that everywhere. I thought I just showed you that this is not the case. Except for visit, you don't have to explicitly handle the valueless state at all and even in the case of visit, you might be fine with std::visit just throwing an exception, because that is indeed an exceptional circumstance. I don't see this *everywhere* at all. Best Mike

8 18

[release] Master branch now completely closed for the 1.70.0 release
by Marshall Clow 08 Apr '19

08 Apr '19

The master branch is now closed for all changes except by permission for the release. Also, remember to add your libraries' changes to the release notes at: < https://github.com/boostorg/website/blob/master/feed/history/boost_1_70_0.q… > Thanks, -- The Boost Release Team

4 7

Regarding Boost.Astronomy GSoC19 proposal review
by sarthak2007 07 Apr '19

07 Apr '19

Hello community, I am Sarthak Singhal, pursuing B.Tech in Computer Science from Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. I had submitted the programming competency test to mentor and also got a positive response from her. I had also submitted the project proposal to the mentor and based on her suggestions have improved it also. I have submitted the draft of the proposal to GSoC site. I request you to go through the proposal. I will appreciate your feedback to improve the proposal. Thank you, Sarthak Singhal -- Sent from: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Dev-f2600599.html

2 4

[release] Boost 1.70.0 Release Candidate 1 available
by Marshall Clow 07 Apr '19

07 Apr '19

The release candidates for the 1.70.0 release are now available at: <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.70.0/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 6e5cba1269225395bb5e78dda48441ccadaf745e42638180015e9e6257068336 ./boost_1_70_0_rc1.7z 35d8e1361e2063f70aa3a6ca0dd8af0877ceb75477ebbd2c726bb1d039658c7a ./boost_1_70_0_rc1.tar.bz2 ec8ddbbee2fd61e2f78a1dfe9a07ad83ca8f6a2f4c704d6f297d89c6afdc4f2c ./boost_1_70_0_rc1.tar.gz ee2c3b97ce10f85a31b6a105ad8edf1c20fb4b936c9a6e6008206059cb98ab1b ./boost_1_70_0_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

7 14

Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [release] Boost 1.70.0 Release Candidate 1 available
by Marshall Clow 07 Apr '19

07 Apr '19

On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 10:53 AM Rainer Deyke via Boost-users < boost-users(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > On 04.04.19 16:27, Marshall Clow via Boost-users wrote: > > 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. > > boost::movelib::adaptive_merge continues to be broken if > iterator_traits<RandIt>::size_type != std::size_t. This breaks > boost::container::flat_map when cross-compiling for MacOS. I have > previously reported this error here. > > I consider this a critical error - as in, I won't be able to upgrade to > Boost 1.70 at all unless this error is fixed for the release. > This is https://github.com/boostorg/move/issues/25, correct? -- Marshall

1 0

[gsoc 19] Review of the proposal draft
by pranay gupta 07 Apr '19

07 Apr '19

Hi list, I have submitted the first draft of my proposal for implementing non-negative matrix factorisation in boost.ublas. It would be really helpful if you could please review it and suggest any improvements. Thanking you in advance. Sincerely, Pranay

2 3

Variant2 review
by Niall Douglas 07 Apr '19

07 Apr '19

I'll firstly apologise for the brevity of this review. It is just before the ACCU conference where I am speaking on a topic I have little knowledge of, and I have done almost no prep due to insufficient hours in the day. I am aware that if I don't make a review now, then I won't at all, so this will have to do. 1. Overall I like the library, it adds significant benefit (primarily removal of dynamic memory allocation) over Boost.Variant. 2. I don't like the lack of propagation of triviality of each individual special member functions. std::variant does this. std::expected does this. I can see Peter's point that for long lists of alternative states, implementing this is a lot of pain for almost no gain. However I do NOT agree with him for Expected. For a two-state variant, it is very highly likely that triviality of special member function will be very important for not a small number of use cases. I personally am happy for Variant2 to implement Expected without review approval here IF that Expected matches exactly std::expected. I am NOT happy if Variant2's Expected breaks conformance on triviality of special member function. If that is the only option on the table, then either please do not include an Expected implementation, or don't include Variant2. This raises a wider point though. What is good for a two-state variant still applies, though less so, to three-state variants, four-state variants and so on. I think there is a fundamental design issue here. If Variant2 can't propagate triviality of individual special member functions for small-number-of-state variants, then there is something fundamentally wrong here. 3. I find the design choice to randomly permute state to avoid an empty state baffling when there is a double buffer based design choice available. I do not like, one bit, the random permutation of state. I think it will lead to buggy code with hard-to-test corner cases. I think it needs to go away in the proposed design. I also don't get the dislike of the double buffer based design. Peter seems to really dislike it, and avoids it whenever possible. I can't understand why. If you can employ a double buffer design in order to eliminate random permutation of state, to me this is an unalloyed good in every way. Nowhere does it say that a variant must be no larger than the largest of its possible states. There is nothing wrong, *whatsoever*, with a variant which is sized the largest of its possible states multiplied by two. So please change the design to that instead. That should be the default design, and design claims. Programmers should write code assuming that design. IF it can be proven that a double buffer is unnecessary e.g. all alternative types are noexcept, a monostate alternative is available etc, THEN you can employ a single buffer implementation as an *optimisation*. That makes thing simple for the end user: add monostate, get single buffer sized. Otherwise assume double buffer sized. With a default double buffer design, most of the other issues which other reviewers have raised go away. Even Robert's concerns about assignment operators, with a double-buffer-by-default design one can always implement the strong guarantee. I badly need to depart, so I'll have to end there by saying that I vote to ACCEPT, conditional on (i) propagation of triviality of special member functions for at least small numbers of alternative states and (ii) removal of ANY POSSIBILITY of random permutation of chosen state under ANY circumstances. Finally, thanks Peter for bringing this library for review. Nice library. Niall

1 0

Proposal for GSoC'19 ( Random Points Generation)
by Mudit Agarwal 07 Apr '19

07 Apr '19

Hi I am submitting my first draft of the proposal for the project, Implementing algorithm for random point generation according to some given distribution in a geometry. I have also implemented competency test for the project https://github.com/Mudit-1999/Random_Points_Generation. It would be really helpful if you could please check if I have fulfilled all the points mentioned to pass competency test. Can you also please review my proposal and suggest any improvement. Hereby attach is my proposal. Thanking you in advance Regards, Mudit Agarwal

1 0

[review][variant2] Variant2 Review Starts April 1
by Michael Caisse 06 Apr '19

06 Apr '19

The Boost formal review of Peter Dimov's Variant2 library will take place April 1 - 10, 2019. Please consider participating in this review. The success of Boost is partially a result of the quality review process which is conducted by the community. You are part of the Boost community. I will be grateful to receive a review based on whatever level of effort or time you can devote. Variant2 is a never-valueless C++11/14/17 implementation of std::variant. >From the README: The class boost::variant2::variant<T...> is an almost conforming implementation of std::variant with the following differences: * A converting constructor from, e.g. variant<int, float> to variant<float, double, int> is provided as an extension; * The reverse operation, going from variant<float, double, int> to variant<int, float> is provided as the member function subset<U...>. (This operation can throw if the current state of the variant cannot be represented.) * variant<T...> is not trivial when all contained types are trivial. To avoid going into a valueless-by-exception state, this implementation falls back to using double storage unless * one of the alternatives is the type monostate, * one of the alternatives has a nonthrowing default constructor, or * all the contained types are nothrow move constructible. If the first two bullets don't hold, but the third does, the variant uses single storage, but emplace constructs a temporary and moves it into place if the construction of the object can throw. In case this is undesirable, one can force emplace into always constructing in- place by adding monostate as one of the alternatives. You can find the source code here: <https://github.com/pdimov/variant2> and the documentation here: <https://pdimov.github.io/variant2/doc/html/variant2.html> Please take an early look at the library and ask questions now. Peter Dimov is very active on the Cpplang Slack #boost channel; however, please consider using the Boost Dev or User Mail Lists so that the entire community might benefit from your conversation. Note: The repository contains an expected implementation also; however, that is not being considered in this review. Thank you for your participation! michael -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com

5 12

[gsoc19] looking for mentor
by Aziz Mousa 06 Apr '19

06 Apr '19

hi, I have my idea to contribute in boost project, I read the boost libraries list and see that the author of Algorithm is "Marshall Clow" I want to know how to contact with him to tell him about my idea. thanks.

1 0