- Boost - lists.boost.org

[Bug Sprint] Status for Thursday, December 2nd
by Marshall Clow 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

There were 33 changes to the trac database yesterday. [ I'd like to say "33 tickets were changed", but some tickets were changed more than once. ] The decrease in activity continues. It's time to ramp it up - there are only four more days in the Bug Sprint. In the last bug sprint, we closed almost 100 tickets. So far this time, we've closed 16. If you think it's too late to get involved - you're wrong! If you're looking for things to do, there are several patches for Date-Time waiting to be reviewed (thx to ktchan): #2956 is very old and need review #3651 is simple documentation changes #4057 appears at a glance simple changes #4411 & #4754 is simple update to time zone data file #4475 #4798 is a simple change #4845 is simple documentation changes #4870 #4920 is simple update to date_time examples and there are a bunch of program-options bugs that can be looked at: #850 program_options strips off escaped quotes in some situations #1132 zero_tokens doesn't work #3813 program_options::options_description.add() permits duplicate options #3909 parse_command_line has bad declaration #3992 Example in documentation for program_options doesn't compil #4040 Program Options has issues with options that support multiple tokens when using multiple parsers #4133 std::logic_error as a base class for program_options::error #4137 boost::program_options::value_semantic missing 's' at the end #4149 exceptions thrown by typed_value::default_value() are not documented #4150 bool_switch() is exception-unsafe #4151 option_description::option_description(3 args) is exception-unsafe #4267 validation_error documentation #4469 Bugs in program_options implementation #4510 [program_options]: implicit_value and positional options conflict #4597 options_description should be defined as noncopyable #4656 program_options parse_config_file() set iostream failbit even if the parse result is ok #4858 Documentation error - Responsefile example code can crash (You all know the drill: develop a fix, test it locally, make a patch, attach it to the ticket) A couple of notes: 1) Please log into the Trac system before you add/modify a ticket. "Anonymous said:" is hard to follow up. 2) It is perfectly OK to add a comment to a ticket that says "I tested this patch on my system (foo, gcc 1.2.3.4, etc) and it worked fine/didn't work/etc" General information about the bug sprint is here: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BugSprintNov2010 General information about how the Trac system works is here: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/TicketWorkflow Overall bug count: November 26: 946 November 27: 939 November 28: 930 November 29: 934 (whoops, that's the wrong direction!) November 30: 931 (better, but the delta is too small) December 1: 929 December 2: 930 Activities on the trac system yesterday: bemandawes 7 ktchan 4 jim.bell@ 4 --others-- 18 Useful reports: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/1 -- full list of tickets https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/18 -- ticket counts by owner https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/19 -- ticket counts by component https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/20 -- ticket counts by ticket type https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/21 -- ticket counts by milestone

5 5

compiling boost optimizations
by Mag Gam 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Currently, I compile with "./bootstrap.sh --with-toolset=intel-linux stage" and then "bjam variant=release link=shared install" Since I am compiling it with the Intel C compiler. I was wondering if there are any known optimizations I can try. tia

1 0

[Bug Sprint][filesystem/io] Path streaming operator
by Richard Hazlewood 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

The filesystem path streaming operator (>>) has a bug, documented here: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4716 A patch was provided, and was implemented on the trunk, detailed here: http://lists.boost.org/boost-commit/2010/08/27576.php The fix was not merged to the Release branch, so missed the 1.45 release. Please can this be merged, so it gets into the 1.46 release? [.../boost/io/detail/quoted_manip.hpp]

1 0

Probing interest in a typed XML traversal library
by Sumant Tambe 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Hello boosters! I'm interested in gauging interest in a typed XML traversal library that combines the succinctness of XPath with the type-safety of XML data-binding tools. I've been developing one such library called LEESA: Language for Embedded Query and Traversal <http://www.dre.vanderbilt.edu/LEESA>. LEESA has several capabilities: 1. Succinct and expressive XPath-like notation for writing object structure traversals 2. Supports child, parent, sibling, descendant, ancestor axes 3. Compile-time schema conformance checking 4. Supports GOF visitors and hierarchical visitors 5. Strategic Programming ... and more! Here are two quick examples comparing XPath and LEESA. More examples are available on the LEESA homepage. XPath expression: "/catalog/book/author/name/text()" LEESA expression: *std::vector<name> author_names = evaluate(root, catalog() >> book() >> author() >> name()); * XPath expression: "//name/text()" LEESA Expression: *std::vector<name> names = evaluate(root, catalog() >> DescendantsOf(catalog(), name())); * The above expressions are checked for schema-conformance at compile-time. LEESA builds these capabilities on top of existing XML data binding tools that generate C++ code from .xsd files. The general process of using LEESA is as follows: 1. Generate C++ classes using your favorite XML data binding tool 2. A python script that comes with LEESA adds a few functions in every generated C++ class. It generates a lot of typedefs and helper functions, which invoke tool generated code. This creates a bridge between LEESA and the code generated by the xml data binding tool. Currently it supports Code Synthesis's xsd and Universal Data Model (UDM) from Vanderbilt University as the underlying code generators. 3. The user includes LEESA.h in his/her C++ program (it is header-only), uses its programming model, compiles, and links with the tool generated code and libraries. So folks, please speak up if you are interested in having such a library in Boost. Thanks, Sumant

3 5

Variadic_macro_data library update
by Edward Diener 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

I have updated the variadic_macro_data librfary in the sandbox to version 1.2. The update does not change the functionality of the library, but adds better documentation, better-looking documentation, and updated jamfiles that allow the documentation and tests to be done in a local directory without having to move the library under a Boost distribution. See the readme.txt file in the doc sub-directory for more information. The variadic_macro_data library adds support and functionality for variadic macros to Boost as well as integrating variadic macros with the Boost PP library without changing the latter library in any way. Comments, questions, and suggestions are always welcome.

1 0

[Bug Sprint] [Date Time] Anyone want to review and commit some of the existing patches?
by KTC 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Hi, Jeff Garland does not seems to have been around for the last few months. As such, could someone review and commit to trunk (and then release) some of the patches on trac? #2956 is very old and need review #3651 is simple documentation changes #4057 appears at a glance simple changes #4411 & #4754 is simple update to time zone data file #4475 #4798 is a simple change #4845 is simple documentation changes #4870 #4920 is simple update to date_time examples KTC

2 1

[Bug Sprint] The November bug sprint starts tomorrow!
by Marshall Clow 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

The Boost bug sprint starts tomorrow Saturday, November 27, 2010 and runs through Sunday December 5th. The goal of the bug sprint is to make Boost better; the way we measure this is to look at the open tickets in the Trac system. In the last bug sprint (back in June), we closed over 200 tickets. However, in the past five months, the number of open tickets has crept back up, so that we once again have more than 900 open tickets. (the count was down under 800 at the end of the previous sprint). General information about the bug sprint is here: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BugSprintNov2010 General information about how the Trac system works is here: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/TicketWorkflow Useful reports: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/1 -- full list of tickets https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/18 -- ticket counts by owner https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/19 -- ticket counts by component https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/20 -- ticket counts by ticket type https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/21 -- ticket counts by milestone -- Marshall

11 25

Easy ticket to close: #4532 make_adaptable undocumented
by Daniel Trebbien 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Ticket #4532 (make_adaptable undocumented; https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4532) should be an easy ticket to close because it only affects the documentation. Would someone please review or commit the patch that I submitted three days ago?

2 1

Getting volunteers' changes back to trunk
by Jim Bell 01 Dec '10

01 Dec '10

Say you have a team of volunteers attacking failed regressions and tickets. They're creating (hopefully) good trunk patches. They can't commit to the trunk, but can modify tickets. If maintainers are active, they could review and incorporate them. But this increased activity may be more of a strain for them. If maintainers are MIA, it won't happen. So we need at least one person to bring these changes back into the trunk. Changes to libraries they're not familiar with. What's the best way for the volunteers to signal to these trunk-authority people to pick up their change? A Ticket keyword and corresponding report should work. Is there a better way? Should we look for a person or two from the volunteers for this role? A regular schedule (say, twice a week) to run the report and patch would be good, I think. Trunk regressions need time to bake. Thoughts?

6 29

Is merging to the release branch allowed again?
by Hartmut Kaiser 01 Dec '10

01 Dec '10

Since I hate holding back merging to the release branch to the last minute before the next release I would like to start doing this asap. Any idea when this might be allowed again? Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com

6 7