November 2021 - Boost - lists.boost.org

CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
by Jon Kalb 13 Aug '24

13 Aug '24

The libraries produced by the Boost community have had a greater impact on the way that the C++ community writes code than any other library implementation. The focus of the Boost community will always be on the libraries, but it is undeniable that we are dependent on and often limited by the infrastructure of our trade. Years ago, the move to Git was contentious; yet, it was required to improve development. In a similar vein our build system has become an impediment for many developers and users, existing and prospective. Therefore, we, the Steering Committee, announce to the Boost community our desire and intent to move Boost’s build system to CMake for users and developers alike. We are soliciting comments and proposals from the community to guide the process and the goals. Our desire is that the community can come to consensus by the end of the calendar year with a vision of supporting users and developers. We understand that the actual process of achieving the end goal will be long, time consuming, and not without its share of conflict. We also recognize that the Boost community is comprised of bright and passionate individuals that are eager to get involved and help get work done. The members of the Steering Committee have been encouraged by the discussions and activity surrounding CMake on the mailing lists over the years and know that many people have voiced visions. We hope that each of you rejoins the discussion to support this initiative and contributes to the common goal of improving Boost’s integration into the broader C++ ecosystem. For the Boost Steering Committee, Jon Kalb, Chair jonkalb(a)boost.org

49 200

Boost Governance?
by René Ferdinand Rivera Morell 10 Aug '24

10 Aug '24

A disclaimer: I write this solely as a Boost Library author. And not in any other capacity or representing any other interest. It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference? Did you know that switch happened? Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers? Do you know when that election happened? Do you know who got elected? Do you know how they were selected? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what their bylaws are? Do you know their financials? More importantly: Did you answer "no" to any of those questions? As a library author, I can say I definitely answered no to many of those questions. This is a problem. As authors, without asking, we should know those answers from the organization that governs our work. We should have input into how that organization governs. In other words, we deserve open and transparent governance; not the closed and opaque status quo. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

10 10

Boost.Text is looking for a (mini-)review manager
by Zach Laine 07 Dec '22

07 Dec '22

I've made all the recommended changes to Boost.Text that came up in the review. Glen, the previous review manager, recommended a mini review of Boost.Text once I'd made those changes. If you'd like to manage the mini-review, please let me know. For everyone, including potential reviewers and review managers, here are the major changes: * All the specific review feedback issues have been addressed. * The string layer is now gone. * The text layer got a major re-work. It is now a set of template-based adaptors (basic_text<>, vs. a text typedef. etc.), which lets everyone get what they want. You can change the underlying storage type (including whatever allocator you prefer), select UTF-8 or UTF-16, and change the normalization form. Glen recommended I drop this layer, but the library is way less useful without this stuff, and these changes address all the concerns raised about the text layer in the review. The updated docs can be found here: https://tzlaine.github.io/text/doc/html/index.html Oh yeah, and I added concept constraints to the whole library when you build in C++20 mode. Zach

17 46

[review][JSON] Review of JSON starts today: Sept 14 - Sept 23
by Pranam Lashkari 09 Aug '22

09 Aug '22

Boost formal review of Vinnie Falco and Krystian Stasiowski's library JSON starts today and will run for 10 days ending on 23 Sept 2020. Both of these authors have already developed a couple of libraries which are accepted in Boost(boost beast and Static String) This library focuses on a common and popular use-case for JSON. It provides a container to hold parsed and serialised JSON types. It provides more flexibility and better benchmark performance than its competitors. JSON highlights the following features in the documentation: - Fast compilation - Require only C++11 - Fast streaming parser and serializer - Easy and safe API with allocator support - Constant-time key lookup for objects - Options to allow non-standard JSON - Compile without Boost, define BOOST_JSON_STANDALONE - Optional header-only, without linking to a library (a point I would like to add in highlight: it has cool Jason logo 😝) To quickly understand and get the flavour of the library take a look at "Quick Look" <http://master.json.cpp.al/json/usage/quick_look.html> You can find the source code to be reviewed here: <https://github.com/CPPAlliance/json/tree/master> You can find the latest documentation here: <http://master.json.cpp.al/> Benchmarks are also given in the document which can be found here: <http://master.json.cpp.al/json/benchmarks.html> Some people have also given the early reviews, the thread can be found here: <https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2020/09/249745.php> Please provide in your review information you think is valuable to understand your choice to ACCEPT or REJECT including JSON as a Boost library. Please be explicit about your decision (ACCEPT or REJECT). Some other questions you might want to consider answering: - 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 which compiler(s)? 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? More information about the Boost Formal Review Process can be found here: <http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html> Thank you for your effort in the Boost community. -- Thank you, Pranam Lashkari, https://lpranam.github.io/

21 73

[container] Contributing 'stationary_vector' to Boost
by Mehrdad Niknami 13 Jun '22

13 Jun '22

Hi all, Happy new year! New mailing list member here. I've developed an STL-style stationary_vector class that retains elements in-place when growing. Very briefly, it is effectively a piecewise-contiguous vector, with the following advantages over vector: - Appending has O(1) overhead in the *worst* case (e.g., push_back() does not move elements) - Insertion and random-access can be done in parallel, as prior iterators & references remain valid This has a variety of benefits, including better UX (no "hiccups" due to reallocations), and the ability to simplify parallel processing of streaming data. It occurred to me the larger C++ community might find this useful. I was wondering if there would be interest in incorporating it into Boost.Container, and if so, what steps I could take to make that happen? I'm of course happy to discuss the design etc. with anyone who might be interested. Summary: https://github.com/mehrdadn/libvital/blob/master/doc/vital/container/statio… Implementation: https://github.com/mehrdadn/libvital/blob/master/include/vital/container/st… Thank you, Mehrdad

7 19

[release] Boost 1.7.0 beta 1 released
by Marshall Clow 13 Apr '22

13 Apr '22

Boost release 1.77.0 beta 1 is now available at: <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/beta/1.78.0.beta1/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 7a3a025451dfa2923129214eef7d16b03c02310a353d02158a549f6caa4284b0 boost_1_78_0_b1.tar.bz2 c491b1dcb916195598aa6581d6708d57fcc750516641c22511c088d572de9c07 boost_1_78_0_b1.tar.gz 35e7a3b0eb412a3933e57c72ba96374eb7d88ff1f89dbec62a16d67ffea2105a boost_1_78_0_b1.7z e6b68feb2f63401c96ca9fe25e939b409189fbe526a6e784e4bd69832c8f09cb boost_1_78_0_b1.zip For details of what's in the release, see <https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_78_0.html>. Please download the beta, give it a try, and report any problems you encounter. Thanks, -- The Boost Release Team

2 1

[ASIO] Do I have to use shared_ptrs with ASIO?
by Andrzej Krzemienski 29 Dec '21

29 Dec '21

Hi Everyone, I am looking at an example implementation of an asynchronous TCP echo server in Boost.ASIO library: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_77_0/doc/html/boost_asio/example/cpp11/ech… It uses a shared_ptr in the implementation to store the things related to session: socket handle, data buffers. I tried to modify it in a number of ways to avoid the usage of shared_ptr (and any form of shared ownership), but they all failed. It looks like I have to use a shared_pointer (or equivalent) when I use ASIO sockets. But conceptually, there is never a point in time where two tasks have to access members of this `session` concurrently: they are always sequenced. So, at least conceptually, there should be a way to do this with a session type that is only movable, with unique ownership: a task does its job with the session and then moves it to the subsequent task. So is this necessity to use a shared pointer an unnecessary and suboptimal design choice? Or is there something fundamental that prevents the unique ownership of buffers and socket handles? Or maybe is there a way to do it in ASIO that I overlooked? I am not trying to solve any specific problem. It just strikes me that a shared_ptr is used in a demo example for the library. I was always of the opinion that a shared_ptr is often abused as a way of doing an ad-hoc GC. Regards, &rzej;

8 21

boost.spawn: review requested
by Oliver Kowalke 06 Dec '21

06 Dec '21

Hi, I'd like to propose the new library boost.spawn (https://olk.github.io/) for review. boost.asio's boost::asio::spawn() uses the deprecated and inefficient boost.coroutine library. boost.spawn provides the same functionality while using boost.context's fiber directly. Oliver

12 49

Boost::any typecasting issue(bad_any_cast)
by Daggumati, Rajesh 06 Dec '21

06 Dec '21

Hi Team, While doing typecasting from boost::any to DecodeErrorPayload_t, its throwing bad_any_cast .. class RegisterIONotification { public: enum NotifyType { TypeUnknown, TypeRegTx, TypeRegRx, TypeDecodeError }; NotifyType Type; boost::any Payload; typedef boost::tuple<std::string, BinaryBuffer_t> DecodeErrorPayload_t; RegisterIONotification(NotifyType type;,boost::any payload) { Type(type); Payload(payload); } }; I have called RegisterIONotification from other class function. void RegisterIOThreaded::OnDecodeError( const std::string& error, BinaryBuffer_t data ) { RegisterIONotification notify(RegisterIONotification::TypeDecodeError ,make_tuple(error, data)); ..... .... ... } While testing, I am getting bad_any_cast exception. TEST_F(...,...) { RegisterIONotification notify = sink.GetDataById(ID::NOTIFY_COMMS_STATUS, 0).GetValue<RegisterIONotification>(); ASSERT_EQ(RegisterIONotification::TypeDecodeError, notify.Type); //passed RegisterIONotification::DecodeErrorPayload_t payload; ASSERT_NO_THROW(payload = boost::any_cast<RegisterIONotification::DecodeErrorPayload_t>(notify.Payload));// Here its got failed...Please help me to fix this. } Regards, Rajesh D Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment.

3 2

[release] 1.78.0 post-beta merges
by Marshall Clow 01 Dec '21

01 Dec '21

The master branch is is now open for post-beta merges, but only as described in the Post-Beta Merge Policy. See <https://github.com/boostorg/wiki/wiki/Releases%3A-Beta-Merge-Policy <https://github.com/boostorg/wiki/wiki/Releases%3A-Beta-Merge-Policy>> Reminder: The master branch closes for the release on Wednesday, December 1st. Full calendar here: https://www.boost.org/development/ <https://www.boost.org/development/> — Marshall P.S Doc changes and test changes do NOT require release manager approval to be merged.

11 36