- Boost - lists.boost.org

Library Review Tool (paging Jeff Garland) -- was : Re: [xint] Formal Review Result
by Michael Caisse 27 May '11

27 May '11

On 05/03/2011 09:12 AM, Matthew Chambers wrote: > On 5/3/2011 11:02 AM, Marsh Ray wrote: >> On 05/02/2011 03:04 PM, Barend Gehrels wrote (in another order): >>> >>> There was somebody who recently mentioned a scoreboard on this list >>> and I now think this is a good idea, because the review manager can >>> check if all reviews are taken into account. >> >> Yes, please. >> >> It would also make it more practical for an observer like me to sit >> down and simply read the reviews >> in an orderly way. >> >>> I understand that the traffic was really high, that review managers >>> do this voluntary, everybody don't have all the time, etc. >>> >>> Reviews are usually carefully written. People spend several hours on >>> it, sometimes days. Skipping these reviews is a sad thing. Writing a >>> library cost weeks, sometimes months or more. Forgetting reviews is >>> a very sad thing. >> >> Honestly, I would be more likely to help review libraries if I felt >> like it wouldn't be buried in >> the volume of the list. > > This where mailing lists fall to pieces. With proper forum software, > moderators could easily organize threads and change subject lines so > that it would be trivial to separate actual reviews from discussion. > And in fact, users would quickly adjust their behavior to fit the > paradigm. Instead, we have hundreds of messages with "review" in the > subject and only some of them are actual reviews, most being > discussion (like this one!). :( > > -Matt > _______________________________________________ Some time ago we all had a discussion like this and I believe Jeff Garland had mentioned Smart Bear's CodeCollaborator to aid in Boost Reviews. I used their product for a short time and was just taking a look at their web site again: <http://smartbear.com/products/development-tools/code-review/features/> I know there are other tools also (like Crucible) but CodeCollaborator also allows reviews of html docs which will obviously be handy. IIRC Jeff had mentioned that SmartBear might be willing to provide licensing for Boost (or opensource .. it is all fuzzy). I believe Jeff was in contact with them... but my memory might be failing (Jeff?? Are you there?) I would be willing to investigate this path further, including the administration and such of the tool, if it is of interest to the community. michael -- In the Sacramento/Folsom area? ** Profesional C++ Training mid-May ** http://www.objectmodelingdesigns.com/boostcon_deal.html Michael Caisse Object Modeling Designs www.objectmodelingdesigns.com

8 13

[network] Review Manager - Volunteer
by Michael Caisse 27 May '11

27 May '11

Review Wizards - Dean Michael Berris and I spoke today about his Network library submission that is in the review queue. I am willing to act as Review Manager for the library which is also acceptable to Dean. If there are no objections, please sign me up. Thank you - michael -- Michael Caisse Object Modeling Designs www.objectmodelingdesigns.com

1 0

Re: [boost] [Math and numerics] interest in Circular values math and statistics library ?
by Greg Rubino 26 May '11

26 May '11

I like that idea. An integer version of this lib would be a good start for a boost lib that supports arbitrary finite groups (you get cyclic and dihedral for free). I think such a thing would probably be more generally described in terms of permutations though. Greg Rubino On May 26, 2011 5:18 PM, "Krzysztof Czainski" <1czajnik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

1 0

[pre-review] Pimpl submission in the review queue
by Vladimir Batov 26 May '11

26 May '11

I have a Pimpl generalization submission getting close to the top in the review queue. Rob Stewart suggested I'd post it to the new Boost Code Collaborator site for a pre-review. That's what I did with the following link to the pre-review (Review #5): http://demo.smartbear.com/boost/go?page=ReviewDisplay&reviewid=5 Your participation in that pre-review is most welcome. Best regards, Vladimir.

8 14

[phoenix] conflicts between result_of namespace and result_of class.
by Vicente Botet 26 May '11

26 May '11

Hi, I have found an error when we define new phoenix expression inside boost namespace. The following #include <boost/phoenix/core/limits.hpp> #include <boost/phoenix/core/call.hpp> #include <boost/phoenix/core/expression.hpp> #include <boost/phoenix/core/meta_grammar.hpp> #include <boost/phoenix/object/detail/target.hpp> #include <boost/proto/transform/lazy.hpp> #include <boost/phoenix/core/is_actor.hpp> BOOST_PHOENIX_DEFINE_EXPRESSION( // line 19 (boost)(convert_to) , (proto::terminal<boost::phoenix::detail::target<proto::_> >) (boost::phoenix::meta_grammar) ) results in darwin.compile.c++ ../../../bin.v2/libs/conversion_ext/test/builtins.test/darwin-4.2.1/debug/builtins.o builtins.cpp:19: error: ‘namespace boost::result_of { }’ redeclared as different kind of symbol ../../../boost/utility/result_of.hpp:35: error: previous declaration of ‘template<class F> struct boost::result_of’ builtins.cpp:19: error: ‘template<class F> struct boost::result_of’ used without template parameters builtins.cpp:19: error: expected unqualified-id before ‘<’ token It seems that the Phoenix result_of protocol and the utility result_of conflicts. Is this a real issue? Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/phoenix-conflicts-between-result-of-name… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2 3

Re: [boost] [ICL] some improvement proposals. Making selectors return const reference
by Joachim Faulhaber 26 May '11

26 May '11

Hi Denis, list, thanks for your interest in Boost.ICL and for your input. First a side note on the subject line: You did what is stated in the boost discussion policy http://www.boost.org/community/policy.html which says: Put the Library Name in the Subject Line [ICL] some improvement proposals. Actually as you can see on the list the convention that is actually established is [boost][Libraryname] bla bla for the developers list and [Boost-users][Libraryname] bla bla for the user's list. *Would someone update the web page accordingly?* Next I'd like to refer to a suggestion you've sent in off-list: 2011/5/16 Denis <denis(a)camfex.cz>: > Hi Joachim > > I also think that the functions upper() lower() first() last() have to > return const reference to domain_type instead of domain_type. > It is the same for int/double/time but has sense for my blobs. > Returning domain_type implies copying. > Same logic as std::vector's at(). This is interesting. With first() and last(), I don't think it is possible, because, dependent on the type of interval, we may generate a local temporary object via increment (++) or decrement (--), which can not be referred to. On the contrary for upper() and lower(), we should always be able to pass the constant reference of the member variables of the interval as return value. As you say, this avoids copying operations that might decrease efficiency, if domain_type objects are large. I think a modification to the code can be done without breaking existing code, at least I hope so. We could use typedef boost::call_traits<domain_type>::param domain_return_type as return type of lower() and upper(), so pass by value can be kept for built in types. Still I am kind of reluctant when I think of implementing this optimization: (1) Return by value works well and fast for the majority of applications where domain_type is built-in or small (2) Return by value allows for compiler optimizations that are taking care for copy elision in many cases. (3) It would be nicer if all selectors had the same signatures (simplicity). (4) Customization of intervals will become more obscure, less understandable by the new domain_return_type. (5) We'd increase expert-friendliness for a concern that is relatively local: Using ICL::intervals and interval_containers with large domain objects is unfavorable anyway. If efficiency is a mayor issue, we would have to consider not using the large objects directly in intervals but introducing a level of indirection. We may refer to them through (smart)pointers or iterators which are small and use an induced ordering for the interval containers for the Compare template parameter. x < y <=> (*x) < (*y) So I'm not shure what to do. Currently I tend to consider an implementation of the proposal. Thoughts? Joachim -- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de

2 2

Re: [boost] [Boost-commit] svn:boost r72166 - trunk/libs/thread/src/pthread
by Juergen Hunold 26 May '11

26 May '11

Hi Anthony, On Wednesday, 25. May 2011 23:19:01 anthony(a)justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk wrote: > Author: anthonyw > Date: 2011-05-25 17:18:59 EDT (Wed, 25 May 2011) > New Revision: 72166 > URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72166 > > Log: > extern "C" functions are static > > Text files modified: > trunk/libs/thread/src/pthread/once.cpp | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Modified: trunk/libs/thread/src/pthread/once.cpp > =========================================================================== > === --- trunk/libs/thread/src/pthread/once.cpp (original) > +++ trunk/libs/thread/src/pthread/once.cpp 2011-05-25 17:18:59 EDT > (Wed, 25 May 2011) @@ -22,12 +22,12 @@ > pthread_key_t epoch_tss_key; > pthread_once_t epoch_tss_key_flag=PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT; > > - extern "C" void delete_epoch_tss_data(void* data) > + extern "C" static void delete_epoch_tss_data(void* data) At least gcc-4.5.2 does not like this combination and bails out with: error: invalid use of 'static' in linkage specification gcc version 4.5.2 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-8ubuntu4) Please find a patch fixing this attached. Okay to commit? Yours, Jürgen -- * Dipl.-Math. Jürgen Hunold ! Ingenieurgesellschaft für * voice: ++49 511 262926 57 ! Verkehrs- und Eisenbahnwesen mbH * fax : ++49 511 262926 99 ! Lister Straße 15 * juergen.hunold(a)ivembh.de ! www.ivembh.de * * Geschäftsführer: ! Sitz des Unternehmens: Hannover * Prof. Dr.-Ing. Thomas Siefer ! Amtsgericht Hannover, HRB 56965 * PD Dr.-Ing. Alfons Radtke !

1 0

[review][autoindex] AutoIndex review result
by Daniel James 25 May '11

25 May '11

The AutoIndex reviews were unanimously in favour of inclusion so it has been accepted into Boost. Reviews were submitted by: Edward Diener, Paul A. Bristow, Barend Gehrels and Hartmut Kaiser. Artyom also took part. Some of the general issues that were raised: The name should be more consistent. There was a little confusion about installation, but this should be easier once it's part of boost. Since it works at the docbook level it can be a bit confusing for a pure quickbook user. We might need to add extra support to quickbook - possibly in the form of a template library. There was some confusion about the integration of the different documentation tools, e.g. the use of <quickbook-define> to optionally include content in quickbook, using 'xinclude' to include doxygen documentation in quickbook. I think this is more of a weakness of the quickbook documentation. A few reviewers wanted finer grained control over where index terms are inserted. It isn't clear how this could be done without adding too much complexity. Adding processing instructions to the xml is one possibility. The C++ header scanner picks up too many symbols for spirit (and will possibly do so for other libraries), some kind of annotation or configuration might help. Thanks to everyone who participated in the review, and to John Maddock for developing AutoIndex, Daniel James

2 1

Boost.Conversion: functors namming
by Vicente BOTET 25 May '11

25 May '11

Hi, during the Boost.Convert after review discussion there were some proposals to use Boost.Phoenix to build the functors. My question is what should be the name of the function that builds the functor. Some possibilities: short s=1; long l=3; using boost::phoenix::placeholders::_1; A- Use a different name: make_converter_to? s=boost::make_converter_to(*short*)(_1)(l) ; B- Use the same name in a different namespace. What about using "fp" as namespace (functional programming). s=boost::conversion::fp::convert_to(*short*)(_1)(l) ; C- Use the same name in the same namespace and use SFINAE/enable_if to select the correct implementation depending on the parameter. s=boost::convert_to(*short*)(_1)(l) ; Which are your preferences? Best, Vicente

5 12

[type traits] issue with operator traits and volatile qualifier
by Frédéric Bron 25 May '11

25 May '11

Sorry for being absent during the last month but it was very hard to find any time to work on the addition of the operator traits. I have not yet had the time to deal with the naming issue... But I found something more tricky while trying to solve the issue of reference types (& was just ignored). I never used the volatile qualifier but I found that the following behaviour breaks the code that detects if an operator returns void or not. Could someone tell me why the following code does not compile? bool f() { } void g(const volatile bool &) { } int main() { g(f()); return 0; } Many thanks, Frédéric

3 2