- Boost - lists.boost.org

qvm: return type for mixed scalar type vector operations
by Kai Szuttor 09 Dec '20

09 Dec '20

Hey all, concerning vector operations in boost qvm, is it possible to somehow specify the return type of a binary operator with mixed scalar input data, e.g. operator+(vec<double, 3>, vec<int, 3>) ? Could not find the customisation point to do this depending on the involved operation. Thanks in advance, Kai

2 2

Re: [boost] Boost Digest, Vol 6513, Issue 3
by Brian Wood 07 Dec '20

07 Dec '20

Peter Dimov writes: > Marshall Clow wrote: > > > I must concur with Ville here; I have had several people tell me they > won?t > > use Boost because ?it changes with every release?. > > Boost does change with every release, and I still keep using 1.38 in > several > projects of mine, but these changes are not limited to ABI at all. > Everything changes, you have to retest the whole lot, for correctness as > well as performance. > > And in general, expecting ABI stability from a collection of predominantly > header-only libraries is setting one up for severe disappointment. > > The standardized libraries are more header-only than Boost so am not sure how this isn't a rap on them also. Somehow C++ has become successful in spite of this. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards

3 2

[SmartPtr] intrusive_ref_counter CounterPolicyT requirements API?
by Billy 05 Dec '20

05 Dec '20

Hi Boost, We're considering implementing our own atomic ref count for `intrusive_ref_count` [*]. A question came up. Is the `CounterPolicyT` template parameter a stable extension hook, or are users expected to strictly stick to the two provided policies of `thread_unsafe_counter` and `thread_safe_counter`? I can see that under the hood, these policy structs are trivially simple and we can just do it, but the question is really about whether the lack of documentation implies that it's a private boost detail. From https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_74_0/libs/smart_ptr/doc/html/smart_ptr.htm… "The second parameter is a policy that defines the nature of the reference counter. The library provides two such policies: thread_unsafe_counter and thread_safe_counter." Thanks for your time, Billy Donahue [*] Incidentally we want to increment with memory order relaxed instead of acq_rel. -- ǝnɥɐuop ʎllıq

3 4

CONTRIBUTION TOWARD YOUR OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY.
by Prakash Choure 03 Dec '20

03 Dec '20

Hii sir/mam I am Prakash Choure and i want to contribute my skill to your open source organisation . As i am a beginner can you guide me for contribution toward your organization .My knowledge is "C" , "C++" And basic of Data structure and Algorithm . please can your team guide me. Thank you

3 2

[release] 1.75.0 post-beta merges
by Marshall Clow 02 Dec '20

02 Dec '20

The master branch is is now open for post-beta merges, but only as described in the Post-Beta Merge Policy. See <https://github.com/boostorg/wiki/wiki/Releases%3A-Beta-Merge-Policy> Reminder: The master branch closes for the release on December 2nd. Full calendar here: https://www.boost.org/development/ -- The release managers

10 47

PolyCollection
by Brian Wood 30 Nov '20

30 Nov '20

Shalom Hey, is anyone using PolyCollection? I have serialization support for it: https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards/tree/master/example/poly If you considered it, but chose an alternative library, what was the reason? Thanks. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again. https://webEbenezer.net

1 0

[release] Issues
by Glen Fernandes 30 Nov '20

30 Nov '20

Need resolution: * Boost.Utility's <boost/operators.hpp> and C++20 * Boost.uBLAS tests failing C++03 and C++14. (They were failing C++20 but I cherry-picked the allocator fixes from develop, so these pass now) Glen

2 1

Re: [boost] The new Boost 17.0.0
by Glen Fernandes 29 Nov '20

29 Nov '20

On 2020-11-29, Raffi Enficiaud wrote: > 0/ For the discussions I am all for it, but I would absolutely not try > to gather consensus. Because there won't be. You definitely don't need consensus. You are free to drop C++03 and C++11 and C++14 support from Boost.Test whenever you want. We've been steadily migrating Boost libraries away from using Boost.Test to using Boost.LightweightTest for various reasons. (And have plans to migrate a few more to Boost.LightweightTest by Boost 1.76) So you can decide to require C++17 or higher for Boost.Test and not have to worry about other Boost libraries. We'll make sure their tests are still working by moving them to LWT. Just give us some warning, before you drop any support. :) Glen

1 0

Re: [boost] The new Boost 17.0.0
by Glen Fernandes 27 Nov '20

27 Nov '20

Dominique Devienne wrote: > > Glen Fernandes wrote >> I would not be in favor of a Boost distribution that requires anything >> higher than C++11 for existing libraries. i.e. Not C++17 or even >> C++14. > > But that's basically Boost as it stands, i.e. Boost 1.x. > I don't think anyone's proposing to drop that. That's Boost 1.x with more C++11 and less C++03 - with authors who choose to drop C++03 support, requiring C++11 at a minimum as per: https://pdimov.github.io/articles/phasing_out_cxx03.html This is something which Boost authors are actually acting on. e.g. Boost.Math and Boost.Multiprecision as of a future Boost 1.77 release: https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_73_0.html <quote> Math * IMPORTANT: C++03 support is now deprecated and will be removed from March 2021. </quote> <quote> Multiprecision * IMPORTANT: C++03 support is now deprecated and will be removed from March 2021. </quote> i.e. This is promising because people support this particular proposal enough to do something, not just for the (potentially unlimited) joy of discussing it on a list. > But isn't this just a "teething" issue? I see Ville already replied in fact. I'm following this discussion over this in C++ committee EWG reflector. I'm optimistic that people will do the right thing by users. But I prefer to make decisions based on what I know now, and what has bitten users today, with -std=c++20 and GCC 10.1 that has already shipped, not speculation about what will happen. As I said before, this is just me. C++11 (not higher, not C++17 or C++20) is just what I support and what I'd be willing to put in work towards in existing Boost libraries (and even volunteer to do for those that I do not currently maintain, but would welcome the contributions). Other authors remain free to drop support for everything besides C++17 or C++20 if they want. Glen

1 1

Re: [boost] The new Boost 17.0.0
by Glen Fernandes 27 Nov '20

27 Nov '20

Speaking only for myself as an author of a Boost library, maintainer of many Boost libraries, and contributor to many Boost libraries, as well as being involved in the Boost release process: 1. Based on my personal knowledge of Boost users, as well as e-mails to the Boost developers lists (boost@...), and the Boost Owners lists (boost-owner@...) from users such as: - @us.af.mil (US Airforce) - @nasa.gov (NASA) and others I would not be in favor of a Boost distribution that requires anything higher than C++11 for existing libraries. i.e. Not C++17 or even C++14. 2. Based on first hand accounts of certain users choosing not to migrate to C++20 because of a silently breaking change in the language affecting their code (operator== rewriting rules, which has even broken certain Boost libraries like Rational), I would certainly not be in favor of changing existing Boost libraries to require C++20 for anything in an official Boost distribution. Glen

4 3