- Boost - lists.boost.org

[repost][release][flyweight] permission for merging to release
by Joaquin M Lopez Munoz 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

Hello, reposting this to gain some release manager's attention... 1.38 release rules say I have to be given explicit to merge a new library into release and the deadline for doing that is Dec 20th... Hello, I hereby request permission to merge Boost.Flyweight into the release branch in time for Boost 1.38: Docs: http://tinyurl.com/6jvfss Trunk test results: http://tinyurl.com/6ogxkt Trunk test results are satisfactory to me (many yellow cells are actually due to environmental problems with the regression testers, or else correspond to plain broken testers). I don't foresee any complication in the merging process. Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

1 0

[svn] log message change request
by JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

I know this is nitpicking, but I've just commited the change 50300 to the repository: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/50300/ and I'd like the associated log message to be changed from up to rev. 49674 from trunk to merged up to rev. 49674 from trunk Apparently, I cannot change this myself due to the current repository configuration and I can't make myself content about leaving the wrong message there :-/ Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

1 0

Re: [boost] [library submission] smoothsort
by dpxguard-boost＠yahoo.gr 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

> >David Abrahams wrote: > >>on Sun Dec 14 2008, Christopher Jefferson wrote: > >>>I have often been surprised at the lack of an algorithms library > >>>in boost. There has > >>>often been times I've wished for a guarded or unguarded insertion > >>>sort, or riffle > >>>shuffle. Is his lack just down to no-one stepping forward to help > >>>write and maintain > >>>such a library of algorithms? > >> > >>Seems like it > > > >I seem to recall that at BoostCon this year, there was a push to > >extend the algorithm support in Boost as part of the Library in a > >Week program. Did anything significant come of that? > > There's some stuff in the sandbox (some of which I wrote), but as far > as I know, none has come up for review. I'm hoping to get off my duff > and write some docs and get some of it reviewed before this year's > BoostCon. In case you are interesting in advanced search-algorithms as well, there is also a generic sequence searching template function in the vault. (Algorithms/single_pass_search) This algorithm is more generic than std::search (works with input-iterators) and has better worst case complexity at the same time. (See also http://www.codeproject.com/KB/stl/single_pass_search.aspx) Best Regards, Jim Xochellis ___________________________________________________________ Χρησιμοποιείτε Yahoo!; Βαρεθήκατε τα ενοχλητικά μηνύματα (spam); Το Yahoo! Mail διαθέτει την καλύτερη δυνατή προστασία κατά των ενοχλητικών μηνυμάτων http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr

3 3

[graph] boost::plugin and boost::id_tag ?
by remi.chateauneu＠gmx.de 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

Hi, I try to run an example here: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_37_0/libs/property_map/iterator_property_ma… typedef boost::adjacency_list<boost::vecS, boost::vecS, boost::bidirectionalS, boost::no_plugin, boost::plugin<boost::id_tag, std::size_t> > Graph; I cannot find boost::plugin and boost::id_tag. Any idea, please ? Thanks

3 3

[library submission] smoothsort
by Edouard A. 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

Hello, I just finished a C++ implementation of the smoothsort algorithm (a derivative of the heapsort algorithm by Dijkstra that, in his words, "is of order N log N in the worst case, but of order N in the best case, with a smooth transition between the two"). When sorting nearly sorted containers smoothsort achieves excellent performances. If you keep sorting the same container, smoothsort may be the right algorithm for you. This implementation works on all sortable containers, with best performances on containers supporting random access iterators (in other words, smoothsorting a std::list is quite slow). It only requires the "<" operator between two elements and the user can supply the function with a binary predicate. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent public C++ implementation. I was wondering if this was interesting enough to be included in the boost library. Kind regards. -- Edouard Alligand

9 19

[result_of] Ticket #1535 ("remove unneeded headers")
by Richard Webb 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

I see that Ticket #1535 (https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1535) was fixed on Trunk a year ago, but doesn't seem to have made it to the release branch. Can the change be merged across for 1.38? Thanks, Richard Webb -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-result_of--Ticket--1535-%28%22remove-unneeded-header… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

1 0

Is there any interest in a vector-like container for small integers class?
by Václav Haisman 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

Hi, is there any interest in a vector-like container for small integers class? The idea is to bit pack small integers into (size_t) units of underlying type. -- VH

3 4

tweaking the review process (was: signals2 review results)
by Stjepan Rajko 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

Hi Paul, On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Paul Baxter <pauljbaxter(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:40 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote: >> I would like to make some suggestion to improve the review management: > > <valid points snipped> > > Whilst I understand your points, unlike our day job, people do have other > more pressing commitments and, for many, the extensive effort given to > reviewing boost libraries is time given in an ad-hoc manner. > > Whilst it is good to have the timetable and a specific method for submitting > reviews, I don't think we need to go further and be more regimented. The > existing flexibility is a positive part of the process, IMHO. I also tend to prefer flexibility when people are volunteering their time. > > [ I do have problems with some libraries actually getting to the point of > review before interest, maturity of interface or implementation are right, > but that doesn't apply here and has been covered in previous discussions.] > I think I was guilty of this / have been bit by this myself. Anyway, there are two things that I think can help here: * requiring a certain number of committed reviewers before scheduling a review * the review manager being more active in examining the library before the actual review About the latter - in both reviews I managed, there was a number of issues (e.g., documentation shortfalls) that came up during the review that I, as review manager, could have discussed privately with the author beforehand had I done a more thorough review of the library. These issues could have been fixed before a review was scheduled, and the reviews could have been more focused on other issues. The review process page states: "The Review Manager... Checks the submission to make sure it really is complete enough to warrant formal review. See the Boost Library Requirements and Guidelines. If necessary, work with the submitter to verify the code compiles and runs correctly on several compilers and platforms." Well, in both cases I had examined the library, tried it on several compilers, read the docs, glanced at the implementation, etc. But it wasn't a thorough review. I think, had I actually gone through the reviewer's list of questions and wrote a full review, it would have given the authors some idea of possible areas that can be improved before the review (being careful not to react prematurely in possibly contentious areas where the opinion of just one person is not enough). Doing something like this would require additional effort from the review manager, but I think it would result in a much better review (and one where it is possibly easier to make a decision because there are fewer remaining problems). Best, Stjepan

3 4

config macro for presence of unordered containers?
by David Abrahams 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

Hi John, I'd like to suppress GCC's backward-compatibility warnings by using <unordered_set> instead of <backward/hash_set> or whatever it is, but I can't find a config macro that tells me <unordered_set> is available. Can we set one up, or something else I can use for that purpose? Thanks, -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

1 0

[release][flyweight] permission for merging to release
by JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

Hello, I hereby request permission to merge Boost.Flyweight into the release branch in time for Boost 1.38: Docs: http://tinyurl.com/6jvfss Trunk test results: http://tinyurl.com/6ogxkt Trunk test results are satisfactory to me (many yellow cells are actually due to environmental problems with the regression testers, or else correspond to plain broken testers). I don't foresee any complication in the merging process. Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

1 0