- Boost - lists.boost.org

metatest interface update, better Boost.Test integration
by Ábel Sinkovics 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

Hi, Thank you for the feedback about my library so far. I've done changes to the interface of the metatest library (currently part of mpllibs - https://github.com/sabel83/mpllibs) The purpose of the changes was to improve compatibility with Boost.Test. They make it easy to embed assertions of compile-time predicates in runtime test functions. The result and pretty-printed reason of a compile-time predicate is represented by an object of type test_result (http://abel.web.elte.hu/mpllibs/metatest/test_result.html) at runtime. These objects can be built using a template function, test_result::build. It evaluates the predicate and does the pretty-printing. operator<< is overloaded for test_result, thus one can easily display these objects in output streams. This is useful for passing the results of compile-time tests to runtime unit testing frameworks. I've implemented the metaprogramming equivalent of the BOOST_<level>() macros as template functions (meta_<level>). One can use them the following way: meta_check< equal_to<int_<13>, metafunction_to_test<int, char> > >(MPLLIBS_HERE); meta_warn< equal_to<int_<13>, metafunction_to_test<int, char> > >(MPLLIBS_HERE, "Some message"); // ... I've used a template function instead of a macro to improve the error messages about syntax errors in the predicates. The template function takes a location (http://abel.web.elte.hu/mpllibs/metatest/location.html) object as argument and metatest provides a macro, MPLLIBS_HERE, that constructs a location object with the current filename:line values. The template functions call BOOST_<level>_MESSAGE. A disadvantage of this solution is that the error reports contain two filename:line locations: the location of BOOST_<level>_MESSAGE in the integration function and the location of MPLLIBS_HERE (which is the one the user will be interested in). I've added a new example demonstrating these integration functions. You can find it in libs/metatest/example/boost_test_assertion in the source tree. I've tested the new interface with the same three compilers I've been testing the libraries with (gcc 4.5, clang 2.8, Visual C++ 10). I'm happy to receive feedback about the new interface. I'm interested if people find it useful. Regards, Abel

2 3

[contract] the volatile issue
by Lorenzo Caminiti 01 Oct '11

01 Oct '11

Hello all, N1962 does not indicate that contracts for volatile members should be handled in any special way (in fact, volatile is not discussed at all in N1962). My library does the following for volatile members: 1) The object `this` is const volatile (and not just const) while checking preconditions, postconditions, and invariants for a volatile member. 2) By default, class invariants of volatile members are the same as for non-volatile members. However, programmers can specify a different set of class invariants for volatile and non-volatile members if they wish to do so. The reason for 2) is that when programming a volatile member that overloads a non-volatile member, programmers can already specify a different set of preconditions and postconditions. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to give the option to also specify a different set of class invariants for volatile and non-volatile members (otherwise why would the pre/postcondition of a volatile member be different from the ones of its non-volatile version while the class invariants are forced to remain the same?). For example, consider a very strange number class which is non-negative (>= 0) when used in non-volatile context but it is non-positive (<= 0) when used in volatile context (probably not a real-life example but still...). The contracts could read: #include <contract.hpp> CONTRACT_CLASS( class (num) ) { CONTRACT_CLASS_INVARIANT( get() >= 0, // (1) volatile class( get() <= 0 ) // (2) ) public: CONTRACT_FUNCTION( public void (set) ( int x ) precondition( x >= 0 ) // 3) postcondition( get() == x ) ) { x_ = x; } CONTRACT_FUNCTION( public void (set) ( int x ) volatile precondition( x <= 0 ) // (4) postcondition( get() == x ) ) { x_ = x; } CONTRACT_FUNCTION( public int (get) ( void ) const ) { return x_; } CONTRACT_FUNCTION( public int (get) ( void ) const volatile ) { return x_; } num ( ) : x_(0) {} private: int x_; }; int main ( ) { num p; p.set(3); num volatile v; v.set(-3); return 0; } Note that via function overloading it is automatically possible to specify a different set of preconditions (and eventually postconditions) for the volatile member (4) than for the non-volatile member (5). Therefore, my library also allows to specify a different set of class invariants for volatile members (2) than for non-volatile members (1) so that the entire contract (including class invariants) can be programmed differently for volatile members if programmers wish to do so. However, if `volatile class(...)` is not used (default) the class invariants: CONTRACT_CLASS_INVARIANT( get() >= 0 ) are applied by the library to all members volatile and non-volatile. (In this case, this invariant is compiled in const volatile context iff the class has one or more volatile functions so a volatile verion of get() is only requirement if a volatile version of set() is introduced.) What do you think? Thanks, --Lorenzo

2 2

[Review:Algorithms] My review of Boost.Algorithm
by dpxguard-boost＠yahoo.gr 01 Oct '11

01 Oct '11

Hello list, First of all I have to clarify that I have only studied the three search algorithms and I can only speak about this part of the library. Furthermore my review was by no means exhaustive, I have only emphasized in few things which I had the time to notice. However I have noticed at least two showstoppers, one in documentation of the search algorithms and the other in the design of the KMP algorithm. Hence my vote for now is "no". I personally believe that the search algorithms should not be accepted, unless these issues are addressed, (or unless I am proved wrong of course) although it would be undoubtedly a good idea to have such a library in Boost. Specifically in the design issue of the KMP algorithm I am willing to help if this becomes necessary. A. Documentation issue The three search algorithms of this library does not offer any additional functionality compared to the standard std::search of the STL. On the contrary these algorithms are less generic than std::search. Consequently the only single reason that will make a developer to choose one of them instead of the std::search can be their performance superiority. (In the most notable STL implementations std::search is implemented using straightforward (brute-force) searching.) However in the documentation I have not found anything (no benchmarks, measurements, etc) that would help the user of the library to understand how fast each algorithm is and in which situations it is advisable to use it. (I believe Phil Endecott has mentioned this issue as well) This is especially important because of the following reasons: - Boyer-Moore and Boyer-Moore-Horspool have identical average time complexity, hence it is not easy for the user to choose among them based on their complexities. - Although KMP has much better worst-case complexity than a typical std::search implementation, their average complexities are practically the same. - The straightforward (brute-force) sequence searching is known to frequently outperform some KMP implementations. For all these reasons I believe that some performance analysis and performance guidelines should be added to the documentation, before this library becomes a part of Boost. For example it would be very nice to have a graphical performance comparison of these three algorithms together with the std::search, in different pattern and alphabet sizes. B. Design issue The fact that the KMP implementation of this library requires random-access iterators for both the pattern and the corpus, seems like a major design drawback to me. I also believe that this drawback virtually cripples the usefulness of the algorithm, for reasons I have already mentioned in previous posts. Best regards Jim Xochellis Homepage: https://sites.google.com/site/xochellis/

2 1

[timer] Boost Timer Library Version 2
by Beman Dawes 30 Sep '11

30 Sep '11

Version 2 of Boost.Timer is about ready to move to trunk. The original version 1 timers are deprecated, but not changed in any way. Besides deciding to keep the version 2 timers in Boost.Timer, many suggestions and corrections from the "Boost.Timer replacement" thread have been applied. See http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/09/185820.php The docs can be viewed at http://beman.github.com/timer/ The code is available at https://github.com/Beman/timer Thanks to all who posted comments, corrections, and suggestions in response to the original posting. Special thanks to Rob Stewart - many of his suggestions have been incorporated - and to Vicente Botet for his work on Boost.Chrono which now is used to implement much higher resolution for wall-clock time. While additional comments are always welcome, unless someone comes up with a showstopper I'm planning to move Version 2 to trunk and get on with other projects. --Beman

3 15

Re: [boost] property tree find no match for 'operator=='
by Ivan Le Lann 30 Sep '11

30 Sep '11

----- "Bernd Prager" <bernd(a)prager.ws> a écrit : > All, > > This is likely to be a silly question. > I am trying to check for the existence of a value in a property tree. > > Reading the docs I assumed the easiest way would be: > > namespace pt = boost::property_tree; > static pt::ptree pt; > > bool has(const std::string key) { > if (pt.find(key) == pt.end()) return false; // (1) > return true; > } > > The compiler complains about "error: no match for 'operator=='" in > line > (1) though. > What am I missing? > For your problem, the two iterators are not of the same type. Don't know the exact reason, but I know that ptree uses multi_index. Might be related. Anyway : - you have a get_optional() method. - you can try replacing end() with not_found() Regards, Ivan

1 0

property tree find no match for 'operator=='
by Bernd Prager 30 Sep '11

30 Sep '11

All, This is likely to be a silly question. I am trying to check for the existence of a value in a property tree. Reading the docs I assumed the easiest way would be: namespace pt = boost::property_tree; static pt::ptree pt; bool has(const std::string key) { if (pt.find(key) == pt.end()) return false; // (1) return true; } The compiler complains about "error: no match for 'operator=='" in line (1) though. What am I missing? Thank you for any help, -- Bernd

2 1

[Review:Algorithms] My review of Boost.Algorithm
by Lorenzo Caminiti 30 Sep '11

30 Sep '11

Review of Boost.Algorithm 2011-09-29 - Lorenzo Caminiti ============================== Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? ------------------------------ Yes, in my opinion Boost.Alrogithm should be accepted as a Boost library. Key points are: a) I would find the library usefull as is, especially for all_of_equal and for the search algorithms. b) I would like to see more algorithms supported into the library in the (near) future (IMO the "only" non-trivial algorithms currently offered are the 3 search algorithms). c) The documentation (which is clear and straightforward) should list more examples. My comments below are all numbered an marked as: [MUST] If these comments are not addressed, I would no longer recommend this library for addition to Boost. [WANT] I would like to see these comments addressed (at least replied to) but I would recommend this library for addition to Boost regardless. [NOTE] I do not feel strongly about these comments and they can be ignored. What is your evaluation of the design? ------------------------------ 1) [WANT] Could all/any/none/one_of_equal be made more general and merged with all/any/none/one_of by accepting a binary predicate via overloading? template<typename InputIterator, typename UnaryPred> bool all_of ( InputIterator first, InputIterator last, Pred p ); template<typename InputIterator, typename BinaryPred, typename V> bool all_of ( InputIterator first, InputIterator last, BinaryPred p, V const& v ); // could even overload for ternary, etc predicates bool BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_PARAMS(int x) { return x > 0; } BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_NAME(positive) int a[3] = {2, 2, 2}; all_of(a, a + 3, positive); // existing form all_of(a, a + 3, std::equal_to<int>(), 2); // instead of all_of_equal all_of(a, a + 3, std::less<int>(), 10); // can also do this now :) not just equal BTW, you can use Boost.Local to define the predicate functions at local scope ;) 2) [NOTE] Is there a (run-time) cost with the destruction of the tables used by Boyer-Moore and the other search algorithms? If so, is the same cost encountered by both the object and functional version of the algorithms? (BTW, it made sense to me to have both an object and function version of the algorithms.) 3) [MUST] There should be a range version for all search algorithms (unless it's not possible for some reason that I can't foresee). 4) [WANT] When using the object interface, is the caller responsible to keep the pattern in scope until the search object is destructed? Either way, this requirement should be clearly documented. 5) [NOTE] I'd be OK with any renaming of is_order based on other's opinions-- I'd follow C++11 if at all possible (is_sorted_until?). (No comment on clamp's argument ordering ;) .) What is your evaluation of the implementation? ------------------------------ 6) I very quickly read through the code. It looks clean and well organized... the iterator algorithms made sense. I did not study the search algorithm implementation close enough to comment on it. What is your evaluation of the documentation? ------------------------------ 7) [WANT] Please add more examples to the docs (you can take a few from the ones you already have in examples and tests). 8) [WANT] Always state complexity guarantees (they are mentioned in docs section but not in the code reference section). 9) [WANT] Are these examples from the docs incorrect? (What's 3, 9, etc?) one_of ( c.begin (), c.end (), 3 ) --> true one_of ( c, 3 ) --> true none_of ( c, 9 ) --> true any_of ( c.begin (), c.end (), 9 ) --> false 10) [WANT] Typos that I noted in the docs: * "are will" in "Since they have to return a place in the input sequence, input iterators are will not suffice". * check indentation of close `};` for `class boyer_moore`. * "and here are the corresponding procedural interface:" should say and "here is". 11) [WANT] Extend document of Boyer-Moore-Horspool and/or Knuth-Morris-Pratt with class code, etc to match docs of Boyer-Moore (interface is listed in the code reference section but not in the search algorithm section). What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? ------------------------------ 12) I would find the library useful as is (especially, for the handy all_of_equal and faster searches) but I would like to see more algorithms supported by the library in the near future. IMO, any/none/one/all and clamp are nice utilities, same goes for the ordered stuff, but at the end I got the sense that the search algorithms were the "only" real meat of the library. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problem? ------------------------------ 13) Yes, I compiled all examples and tests on GCC 4.3.4 under Cygwin (BTW, in all_example.cpp rename all_of_val to all_of_equal). I got some warnings on MVSC 10 under Windows (see attached file). How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? ------------------------------ 14) I'd say a quick reading, I spent about 7 hours on it. I red all the docs and compiled all the examples (at least on GCC). Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? ------------------------------ 15) Thankfully, not anymore ;) but reading the docs reminded of my class work on Boyer-Moore and variations-- it was a while ago. I'd say I am marginally familiar with the problem domain. --Lorenzo

3 3

[Review:Algorithms]
by Riccardo Marcangelo 30 Sep '11

30 Sep '11

Hi Marshall Firstly, I think the documentation is quite good. I like that there is a description of what each algorithm does, its return type and complexity. Maybe one example of each algorithm would be a nice addition. I think one_of complements the C++11 algorithms all_of, any_of and none_of well. is_increasing, is_strictly_increasing, is_decreasing and is_strictly_decreasing are useful, especially for statistical ranges. These are rolled fairly often so this is a welcome addition. is_ordered() seems to be similar to the C++11 algorithm is_sorted_until() with a comparison function. For consistency I would recommend using the behaviour of is_sorted_until() and renaming the function to is_sorted_until(). If this change were made I think there would also be a strong case for including the C++11 algorithm is_sorted(). I'm a bit sceptical on passing the arguments to clamp() by value, except for the predicate. I think (actually I'm totally convinced for myself) that clamp() should be overloaded, one version passing the arguments by const reference and the other passing the arguments by reference. Otherwise it's doing unnecessary copying in some cases. If V is large the overhead of the unneeded copies could be a lot. Another reason to not pass the arguments by value is that comparing objects should not raise any exceptions but copying usually can. The return types for the two overloaded versions would be "const V &" and "V &" respectively. Sadly, I was unable to use the search algorithms, boyer_moore_search(),boyer_moore_horspool_search() and knuth_morris_pratt_search(). All failed with a "string iterators incompatible" error during runtime using Visual C++ 2010. At first I thought it was my usage but the examples provided also had this problem. Overall, I like the library and vote "yes" for it to be included into Boost although I hope the issues I raised can be addressed. Kind regards Riccardo P.S Sorry if I haven't followed the protocol properly with this review, I'm fairly new to the Boost mailing list. -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Review-Algorithms-tp3859590p3859590.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2 1

[Boost][Asio] Linker error when compiling serialization example
by jamesa 30 Sep '11

30 Sep '11

I receive a 2019 linker error when attempting to compile the asio serialization example: error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol "public: void __thiscall connection::async_read<class std::vector<struct stock,class std::allocator<struct stock> >,class boost::_bi::bind_t<void,class boost::_mfi::mf1<void,class networkConnection,class boost::system::error_code const &>,class boost::_bi::list2<class boost::_bi::value<class networkConnection *>,struct boost::arg<1> > > >(class std::vector<struct stock,class std::allocator<struct stock> > &,class boost::_bi::bind_t<void,class boost::_mfi::mf1<void,class networkConnection,class boost::system::error_code const &>,class boost::_bi::list2<class boost::_bi::value<class networkConnection *>,struct boost::arg<1> > >)" (??$async_read@V?$vector@Ustock@@V?$allocator@Ustock@@@std@@@std@@V?$bind_t@XV?$mf1@XVnetworkConnection@@ABVerror_code@system@boost@@@_mfi@boost@@V?$list2@V?$value@PAVnetworkConnection@@@_bi@boost@@U?$arg@$00@3@@_bi@3@@_bi@boost@@@connection@@QAEXAAV?$vector@Ustock@@V?$allocator@Ustock@@@std@@@std@@V?$bind_t@XV?$mf1@XVnetworkConnection@@ABVerror_code@system@boost@@@_mfi@boost@@V?$list2@V?$value@PAVnetworkConnection@@@_bi@boost@@U?$arg@$00@3@@_bi@3@@_bi@boost@@@Z) referenced in function "public: void __thiscall networkConnection::handle_connect(class boost::system::error_code const &,class boost::asio::ip::basic_resolver_iterator<class boost::asio::ip::tcp>)" (?handle_connect@networkConnection@@QAEXABVerror_code@system@boost@@V?$basic_resolver_iterator@Vtcp@ip@asio@boost@@@ip@asio@4@@Z) The client class from the example has been renamed to network connection and all the references corrected in the code, the client and stock files have not been changed and I'm still getting this error. Can anyone give me some insight has to what exactly I'm doing wrong here? using: Windows 7 64 bit Microsoft visual studio 2008 boost Ver. 1.47 -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Asio-Linker-error-when-compiling-s… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

1 0

Re: [boost] to_string(v)
by Olaf van der Spek 30 Sep '11

30 Sep '11

Some time ago (2002) there was talk about a to_string function. Did this ever materialize? http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2002/01/23585.php "to_string(5)" is a lot shorter than "lexical_cast<std::string>(5)". Likewise for "to_int("5")". Greetings, Olaf

3 5