- Boost - lists.boost.org

Re: [boost] Re: move_ptr
by Peter Dimov 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

Howard Hinnant wrote: > On Jan 26, 2004, at 4:59 PM, Daniel Wallin wrote: > >> Howard Hinnant wrote: >>> <snip> >>> And I submit that: >>> S<T[], my_deleter> >>> is more elegant syntax than: >>> S_array<T, my_deleter> >> >> FWIW, I'm not sure it's a good idea to design the interface around >> partial specialization. std::vector<> replaces almost every possible >> need for array allocation, so does this use case really need to be >> less verbose? Is it worth dropping support for older compilers? > > Need to be? No. But I still like it. <shrug> I was convinced > because that's how a newbie expected it to work. I'm starting to not like it. :-) The problem is: template<class X> void f(S_ptr<X> px); where f doesn't support arrays. A reasonably common occurence. S_array<> doesn't match, but S_ptr<T[]> does. The author of f would need to learn about enable_if to prevent array pointers from being passed to f. This is not good, although the exact degree of not-goodness is somewhat debatable.

6 8

Re: [boost] move_ptr
by Daryle Walker 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

On 1/26/04 6:42 PM, "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant(a)twcny.rr.com> wrote: [SNIP] > for me. Does that address your concern, or have I missed your point? Yes. No. (You did address the concern and not missed the point.) -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Thread request: event object
by Daryle Walker 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

On 1/26/04 4:50 PM, "Hurd, Matthew" <hurdm(a)sig.com> wrote: >> On Behalf Of Sean Kelly [SNIP] >> or better yet: >> >> if( lock const& l = lock(guard,t)) > > I like this last one, though I suspect I'll end up with > > if (lock lk(guard,t)) > > in my code as it will be the first thing I'll think of. [TRUNCATE] Did you see my last message in this thread? I said that the rules of C++ _FORBID_ creation of multiple objects and/or use of the constructor call syntax when using object creation with the condition of an "if" or "while". The single object syntax with "=" is the only one allowed. -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com

1 0

Re: [boost] [administrative] Formal Review Process
by Daryle Walker 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

On 1/26/04 10:33 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave(a)boost-consulting.com> wrote: [SNIP] > I think we should: > > a. Make being a review manager or a moderator or a wizard one of the > conditions of having a library in boost [TRUNCATE] This might create a barrier (anyone that wants a writer hat to have an admin hat forced on them) that discourages contributions. Let's not blur the line between writers and admins. -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com

1 0

Re: [boost] impl(ementations) - keeping it simple
by Daryle Walker 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

On 1/25/04 11:23 PM, "John Torjo" <john.lists(a)torjo.com> wrote: > Again, I'm pretty frustrated that some libraries have source files that > need to be compiled separately (using bjam). > > I was thinking that we could have a directory '/boost/impl', and each > library that has sourse files could have an .hpp file that includes all > of its source files (that would normally need to be compiled separately). > > This way, any user, even not having bjam, can include the implementation > of a library, as simple as: > // this is included in ONLY one source file > #include <boost/impl/filesystem.hpp> We have some implementation files as *.cpp for a reason. Some implementations were _never_ meant to be forced through the #include system (structure-wise, not just size-wise). If the files are large, the compilation time can go up dramatically. > As a regular user, I'd rather have the above, than having to use bjam to > build a library. You wouldn't know it from how most talk about it here, but you don't need to use Bjam (I don't). You can include the appropriate Boost files (or search directories) directly in your IDE project file. For mandatory source, finding the file initially, or knowing that they're needed, is the problem. > If people agree, I volunteer to create the /boost/impl directory for all > the libraries that now need to be compiled separately, somewhere this week. I wouldn't agree. But I do think we need a top-level "src", "boost_src", "source", or "boost_source" directly that all the mandatory source files will be moved to for easy access. -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com

1 0

Re: [boost] Re: impl(ementations) - keeping it simple
by Robert Ramey 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

Reece Dunn wrote: >John Torjo wrote: >>Maybe to simplify the process, in boost-root (where boost-build.jam file >>exists), we could have a makefile which automatically builds bjam from the >>source files and the invokes it with a given configuation. >> >>like: >>make msvc >>(instead of bjam "-sTOOLS=msvc") >> >>Unfortunately, I don't have any makefile knowledge. ahhh - we've come full circle. >I am knowledgeable in makefiles, but this leads to a problem: you need to >configure the makefile to handle all the various compiler and platform >combinations - something bjam already handles, so why duplicate this effort? >Is there a bjam file for bjam?! That way it could be bootstrapped. But then >why not just download a pre-built version of bjam? Bascally I think the whole purpose of bjam is to address the concerns of the original poster. Unfortunately, this is not obvious from the information on bjam that comes with the system. I realise that the information is available - its just that is spread around in several places. Bjam is a large subject and requires almost a book to explain it. BUT it (or something like it is necessary for boost - as was obvious to the original poster. The central purpose of the bjam system is to specify how to build programs in a generic way independent of any particular platform while at the same time specify how each platform handles particular aspects of the application developement. This is a very ambitious concept and has resulted (not surprisingly) in a system that is pretty elaborate. A very ambitiuos effort. In one important way, its not ambitious enough. Unlike the rest of boost, it seems directed a bit narrowly to building and testing boost libraries. I get this impression from the fact that much effort is being invested in the code but relatively little in producing a complete, coherent and well organised explanation of how to make best usage of it. Maybe we can sucker someone in writing an O'Reilly book on this which would include the bjam system? Of course this would need a more polished system. I'm sorry go on about this, the thing just drives me crazy. John Torjo - bjam is exactly what you're looking for - its just not clear from the explanation. Robert Ramey

2 1

Re: [administrative] Formal Review Process
by Dave Gomboc 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

] David Abrahams wrote: ] ] ] Dave Gomboc <dave(a)cs.ualberta.ca> writes: ] ] ] ] It's a good idea, but I have to ask: is this a bicycle shed ] ] discussion? Does tweaking the seconding process really ] solve any of ] ] Thomas' problems? ] ] At least it's my shed. I think it can reduce the workload for ] the review wizard. ] ] Thomas Quoting issue here: that was Dave A.'s text, not mine. Dave

1 0

Re: [administrative] Formal Review Process
by David Abrahams 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

Dave Gomboc <dave(a)cs.ualberta.ca> writes: > ] I suggest that such a requirement be added to the formal > ] review process, with a specific (low, ie, 3) number of > ] "formal seconds" required for a formal review request in > ] order for it to reach the schedule. It should be explicitly > ] noted that "seconding" a review request does not imply a vote > ] to accept, nor a commitment on the part of the person > ] seconding to participate in the review. > > I also like the idea, but with a twist: it should be explicitly > noted that seconding a review request _does_ imply a commitment to > review the library should a review be scheduled for it. It's a good idea, but I have to ask: is this a bicycle shed discussion? Does tweaking the seconding process really solve any of Thomas' problems? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com

2 1

Re: [boost] Re: [administrative] Formal Review Process
by Jeff Garland 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:10:23 -0800, Thomas Witt wrote > > Jeff Garland wrote: > > I don't like the idea of a mailing list to solve this problem. > > Why? Really I just want to know. Because the primary issue is a lack of time and I don't see how complicating things with another mailing list solves that problem. Also, if review comments either intentionally or accidently wind up on a review list then there is a third list I now have to search when looking into the archive -- I've had to look on the dev and user groups a few times because I can't remember where a particular discussion occurred. > There is more to the filtering than meets the eye. The usual process > up to know was that somebody posted a request. That request usually > lead to some discussion. As a result in quite a few cases the Which is one reason why I believe this needs to stay on the dev list... > library author decided to tackle the issues before the request. I've > been following these discussions in order to see whether the request > is likely to be withdrawn or not. The net effect of all this a lot > of postings use review in the subject line and are neither requests > nor formal review related. I am not criticising poeple for doing > this I just try to present the current situation. Yep. > Another issue that is related to this problem is that we are already > close to having more review requests than we can handle. (I am not > talking about the wizard here, just the list and the reviewers). I don't agree. There were more reviews in 2002 (15) than 2003 (~10) by my count. My guess is that about 1 full review per month is about what can be reasonably done. I, for example, have not been a review manager for a year so I don't feel over-worked. >In the past we already had reviews where there was very little feedback. That is an issue for the review manager to handle. I would leave it up to the judgement of the review manager to decide if there has been enough participation. If the participation is too low then the library should probably be rejected for lack of interest. But again that is the judgement of the review manager to make. As for the number of review requests, > In my opinion we need some kind of staging in order to streamline > the influx of libraries in the formal review process and to improve > the quality of reviewed libraries. Thus making failure for trivial > reasons more unlikely. I don't recall any specific examples of this. We already have a multi-stage review process. Sure there are examples of people just joining and throwing out a library for formal review before it is ready, but someone then provides guidance on the process. > I think the idea of a separate mailing list fits into this staging > strategy. I.e. the review list would be reserved for review and > review only. One idea might be to require a pre review on the > developers list or required 2-5 people to second the review request. Sure, but it complicates life for users trying to decide which lists to subscribe to, post to, and search. There won't be anything to stop someone from posting a half-baked library on the new list or accidentally posting a review request on the dev list... > > I think some simple additions to the submission process would solve the > > 'heads-up' to the review manager problem: > > A copy of the Review Request posting should be sent directly to > > the review wizard (email here). If the review wizard does not > > respond with an acknowledgement within 48 hours another request > > should be made. > > As explained not every request leads to a review. Sure, but at least the submitter would be aware that you are paying attention. So the acknowledgement is not a date for the review, but just a little "hello, I see your request, have you read the submission guidelines" sort of mail. > > Also, note that the entire discussion of the Review Wizard is on > > the Formal schedule the review. > > I would really appreciate it if you could make that change. Sure. > > Finally, it seems to me the real solution is to either split the duties or > > find another review wizard volunteer. > > As of now I don't have a good idea how things can be split up. Perhaps you can offload the monitoring or organization of a particular upcoming review -- I'm sure we can figure something out. > > I'm willing to spend a couple hours a > > month on this if it would help, so Thomas send me an email > > off-list if you have something you want to offload on me. > > Thanks Jeff! I'll shoot you an email as soon as I see clearer. Let me know. Jeff

3 3

Re: [boost] Re: [administrative] Formal Review Process
by Douglas Gregor 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

On Tuesday 27 January 2004 01:20 am, Thomas Wenisch wrote: > This idea of seconding a review request is an extremely good idea. It > adds formality to what is captured in the current process as "post to list > and see if there is interest". The fact that someone seconds a review > request demonstrates that there is interest in the library, and that there > are people who are following the review list that might be inclined to > review. > > I suggest that such a requirement be added to the formal review process, > with a specific (low, ie, 3) number of "formal seconds" required for a > formal review request in order for it to reach the schedule. It should be > explicitly noted that "seconding" a review request does not imply a vote > to accept, nor a commitment on the part of the person seconding to > participate in the review. It just is an indication that a library is > interesting and worthy of review (and worthy of consuming time on the > schedule that could be used reviewing other libraries). I too like the idea of seconding a formal review request, but I'd rather that "seconding" imply that someone has looked over the library and found that it is in reasonably good shape for a formal review. Otherwise, we'll still have the problem Thomas W. is describing where a formal review is requested, several people "second" because they are interested, but the formal review won't happen because the library isn't ready. Doug

2 1