- Boost - lists.boost.org

filesystem::change_extension doc error (1_31_0)
by Jeff Flinn 19 Apr '04

19 Apr '04

In http://www.boost.org/libs/filesystem/doc/convenience.htm#extension under the heading change_extension appears: path basename( const path & ph, const std::string & new_extension ); which should read: path change_extension( const path & ph, const std::string & new_extension ); Jeff F

2 1

Boost views library
by Vladimir Prus 19 Apr '04

19 Apr '04

Hi Roland, [I'm sending this message both to the list and to you personally in case you don't read the list regularly]. I'm wondering what's the status of your "views" library, which is now in Boost sandbox? I'm rather interested to use it and see in in Boost, and I have some questions: 1. Do you plan to work on it anytime soon and push it to review? 2. It (specifically filter_iterator) does not work for me (see the attached compile log). Is there any change you'll fix the problems? Will it be OK if I fix the problems? 3. I would have expected that there is some common 'view' class which provides definitions for typedefs and functions like 'empty' and that individual views only define methods which really differ, like begin/end. Was this design ever considered. 4. Together with filter_view, I'd like to have 'filter' function, so that I can do something like: for_each( filter(vertices(g), boost::lambda::bind(out_degree_f, _1, g) == 0), .....); Is it possible add such functions? - Volodya

2 6

[Serialization] Formal Review
by Matthew Vogt 19 Apr '04

19 Apr '04

Formal review points: * What is your evaluation of the design? The design is rather complex - it certainly allows great flexibility, at the cost of ready comprehensibility. I realise that the complexity has accrued as a result of the library's extensive 'generalisation' phase; it would be nice to see a brief 'design and evolution' section in the documents. It's a little hard to comment on the design without having participated in the first review; I hope other reviewers can address this. * What is your evaluation of the implementation? The implementation seems quite clean, and well ordered. I think the comments in the code need a review pass, since they are occasionally out-of-sync with the code they comment upon. Also, it would be nice to see a bit more commentary on the purpose of the various classes that make up the implementation, which aren't covered by the documentation. The library includes part of the code as '.ipp' files, for inclusion into user '.cpp' files. This is not a common practise in boost libraries; perhaps it needs to be documented somewhere in the Boost:More Information section. * What is your evaluation of the documentation? The documentation is excellent. The layout is ideal, progressing through tutorial, reference and implementation sections. I think the documentation addresses extending the library with serialization of external types better than it addresses extending the library with new archives (although, this is probably a biased view :) ) I think the 'Advice' section is redundant; these points should be moved to the relevant reference section instead. * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? I think the library is potentially of very wide applicability, due largely to its extensibility in the separate domains of types and archives. * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Yes, with GCC 3.2.2, without problems. * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? I read the documentation closely, investigated portions of the implementation, and tried to extend the library with types and archives. * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Yes, and no; the library's applicability is broad, so few people will have extensive knowledge of the whole problem domain. I am more familiar with serialization for marshalling than for persistence, or for interoperability. * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Yes. I can't think of any major issues that would force further re-design in the library, although new implementation detail issues are surely likely; I think it should be accepted now. Addressing Jeff's questions: 1) This is a large, complex, and important library. Please don't wait till the end of the review period to start your review -- there is no additional room in the review schedule to extend the review period. This is a brief review; please ask if you would like detail on any response. 2) I am particularly interested in hearing from parties that have tried to extend the library by adding serialization for a new type or by building a new type of archive. The ability to easily extend the library for new types and novel types of archives is critical for this library. As mentioned earlier, I think that the documentation covers the handling of types better than extension with archives. The section 'New Archives' needs to address the difference between overriding 'save' and 'save_override', and 'operator>>'. Also, discussion of the archive's preamble, and how to disable or modify it seems to be necessary. That said, the library seems not to limit anything an archive implementor may want to do. My only remaining concern is regarding controlling access to indiviual overloads of 'save' or 'load'. This seems to break down, due to the fact that all accesses are from the 'access' class. 3) If you reviewed the library during the first review, I would like your evaluation of whether the new version of the library addresses your original concerns. Also, if this is a re-review I would appreciate if you could send me a weblink from the mail archive to your original review posting(s). Not me. 4) Finally, I would like reviewers to indicate parts of the library that might become standalone boost libraries. While this will have little bearing on the acceptance / rejection of the library it might allow a reduction in the size of the library. Some sections of code are definitely candidates for extraction from the serialization library, largely identified by Robert in the 'Miscellaneous' section of the documentation. The strong typedef and state_saver utilities could be extracted, perhaps to the utility library. Perhaps the extended type info infrastructure is useful outside the library. The dataflow iterators are very interesting, but I'm not sure how they interact with the iterator adaptors library, or with sandbox views library. The unicode conversion code is certainly useful, but I imagine it might be better to leave it as an implementation detail of serialization, until someone volunteers to investigate a complete solution for this issue. The code dealing with XML formatting and escaping is in a similar situation. Thanks Robert, for your efforts Matt

1 0

VC8!!!
by firingme 19 Apr '04

19 Apr '04

Welcome to use Microsoft Visual C++ 8.0 tools. Setting environment for using Microsoft Visual C++ tools. E:\VC8>cl Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 14.00.30703.05 for 80x86 Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. usage: cl [ option... ] filename... [ /link linkoption... ]

6 5

Re: [boost] Re: Using Serialization for binary marshalling
by Robert Ramey 19 Apr '04

19 Apr '04

Matthew Vogt writes: > Actually, XDR and CDR are of secondary interest for me; For me too, but these have be much requested and finishing these off in a polished way will be significant contribution to the library for many users. > I'm interested in > being able to save to proprietary formats (which often means that the > applications involved never got around to specifying a standard > format...). There must be thousands of ad-hoc binary formats in use > today. Hmmm - I'm a little wary of this. Though I'm not sure I know what you mean. Some persons interested in the library have hoped it can be used to generate some specific format. But that format doesn't accommodated all the information required to rebuild and arbitrary C++ data structure so in order to do one ends up coupling the serialization of classes to the archive format - just exactly what the serialization library is designed to avoid. Actually, My current thinking is to add a section to the documentation ( I love my documentation ! Many people have contributed to it by careful reading and criticism) which suggests a transition path from a proprietary format to usage of the serialization library. This transition would be basically a) make a program which loads all your "old" data in the "old" way. b) serialize the structures. So I'm skeptical of trying to adjust to "old" proprietary formats with the serialization library. >> 1) I wonder why you derived ordered_oarchive from >> basic_binary_oprimitive<Archive, OStream> > I'm using the save_binary / load_binary functions from > basic_binary_oprimitive > and basic_binary_iprimitive. Maybe we'll consider factoring this out into a standalone function. We'll keep and eye on this for now. In fact, if the salient feature of XDR is Endian awarness, alignment etc. I'm wondering if some of the functionality of your classes shouldn't be moved into your own version of load_binary thereby making inheriting the native one unnecessary. > 2) there's some stuff in boost that addresses alignment in a guaranteed? > Portable manner that may relevant here. Sse #include > <boost/aligned_storage.hpp> . BTW - the best way to make your code portable > without cluttering up with #ifdef etc... is to use more boost stuff - let > other people clutter up their code with #ifdef all over the place. > Yes, but the aligned_storage template helps with platform-specific > alignment within the machine. I don't see how it helps with > platform-independent alignment within the content of the archive... OK - I would like to see that made a little more transparent and better explained with comments. It's an important part of the issues being addressed. > 3) I'm curious about the override for the saving of vector. ... > I need to override the serialization of vector, because the vector must be > serialized with a known policy to yield a required layout in the archive. > The fact that this serialization happens (at this point in time) to be > exactly the same as the default implementation is not relevant - that can > be changed at any time, but the CDR, XDR and other binary formats must > not change. I'm still not convinced - its seems to me that it shouldn't need to be overridden for XDR and CDR which is what these classes do. What about list, deque, set, etc. [ Points 4-6 conceded ] >> 7) I'm just a little queasy about using the term marshalling. In fact >> any of the archive implementations could be used for marshalling - not >> just a binary one (XML is the favorite flavor of the month). So I >> think it's sort of misleading. > Yes, I see what you're saying. I'll have a think about this - but the > term 'marshalling' is not particularly prevalent in the code. Even if > the term does have broad application, I think I am using it in the > traditional sense. Your library does marshalling ( as understand the term is usually used ). My complaint is that its too modest. Your library does more than that. When I started this library there was strong usage of the term "persistence" which lead to the misconception that the library had nothing to do with "marshalling". I see serialization as use in a number of things - persistence, marshalling and who knows what else? (e.g. generating a crc on the whole data state of the program to detected changes). That's why I went to much effort to avoid this characterization of the library. Your addition will gain strength from leveraging on this and by fitting in with the established pattern will be found easier to use. This will make it more successful. Also by following such a pattern it will almost entirely eliminate the need for special documentation. > 8) in my native binary archive, I used a template parameter for the stream > class. As it stands, I don't test or use the corresponding archive for wide > character streams because the WEOF would need special treatment. I haven't > spent any time on this. Perhaps you've addressed this in some way. > No, I was hoping you'd have it all sorted out - I've never used a stream > specialised with anything but char. In fact, it doesn't really make sense > to me, to produce binary output as anything but a byte stream - I was just > following your lead, really :) That's basically why I haven't spent any time on it. I made it templated on the stream class basically motivated by symmetry with the other archives. It should be finished by addressing the WEOF/EOF issue and using a code convert facet which turns the wchar_t interface into a byte stream. This way it would be useful to programs which are built around wchar_t rather than char. I suspect more programs in the future will do this. Its not very hard, but not of urgent interest. BTW - this might be better reason to derive from basic_binary_oprimitive. Robert Ramey

3 5

[Boost-bugs] [ boost-Bugs-937606 ] filesystem::directory_iterator returns incorrect listing
by SourceForge.net 19 Apr '04

19 Apr '04

Bugs item #937606, was opened at 2004-04-19 14:04 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=107586&aid=937606&group_i… Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Jonathan Roewen (s-a-t-a-n) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: filesystem::directory_iterator returns incorrect listing Initial Comment: directory_iterator doesn't work correctly under debian linux (sarge/testing). Returns an invalid iterator value, which can cause a segmentation-fault, and drops the last item from the resulting listing. path dir = "my_dir"; if ( exists(dir) || !is_directory(dir) ) return; directory_iterator itr(dir), end; while ( itr != end ) { const path &p = *itr++; //-- do something with it } When I had a directory with only one file, no actual filenames were returned. When calling methods such as leaf() on const path &p, it would cause a seg-fault. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=107586&aid=937606&group_i… ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Boost-bugs mailing list Boost-bugs(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-bugs

1 0

Re: [boost] Re: [indexed_set] revised naming proposal
by JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z 19 Apr '04

19 Apr '04

----- Mensaje original ----- De: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms(a)attbi.com> Fecha: Jueves, Abril 15, 2004 7:50 pm Asunto: Re: [boost] Re: [indexed_set] revised naming proposal > How about just allowing any MPL sequence to specify the indices? mpl_index_list does precisely this. Check the MPL part in the advanced topics section of the docs. > > Also, it would be a nice syntactic convenience to allow the main > container template to accept a "variable" number of parameters, > and then > allow the indices to be specified as parameters directly to the main > container template. > Pardon? Do you mean something like multi_index_container < employee, ordered_unique<...>, unordered_unique<...> > without the index_list<> nesting? This cannot be done, as multi_index_container accepts an additional argument, the allocator class. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

6 7

Re:[boost] Serialization compile errors on CW9
by Robert Ramey 18 Apr '04

18 Apr '04

Miro Jurisic wrote: > I am trying to play with Serialization #18 on CodeWarrior 9, and I ran > into the following problems: > mbstate_t is not in the global namespace when using CW9 and MW STL > (I didn't test with gcc STL). This caused compile errors in > archive/codecvt_null.hpp. I altered the workaround already present for > Borland, but I believe this is the wrong answer, because it puts a using > declaration in a header file. We're open to suggestions. > That leaves me with the following two errors in compiling > text_oarchive.cpp... I am not sure what to do about these two errors, > but I am too tired to stare at them right now, so I am posting them here > in hope that someone can make sense out of them... the second error in > particular makes no sense to me at all. meeroh My formatting: > Error : illegal explicit conversion from > 'boost::iterator_facade< > boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks< > boost::archive::iterators::base64_from_binary< > boost::archive::iterators::transform_width< > const char *, 6, 8, char > >, > Char > >, > 72, > Char > >, > char, > boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, > char, > char > >' > to 'const char *' ... I recently cleaned up and streamlined the implementation of the "dataflow iterators" in my local copy. I don't know if this will make the above disappear. I sort of doubt it. I'm suspicious of the transition from char to const char. I'll look at this. > Error : object > 'boost::archive::text_oarchive_impl<boost::archive::text_oarchive> > ::text_oarchive_impl `base constructor'(std::basic_ostream<char, > std::char_traits<char>> &, unsigned int)' redefined This looks like a compiler issue in getting bool/int confused. Try Changing basic_text_oprimitive<std::ostream>( os, 0 != (flags & no_codecvt) ) At around line 63 in file text_oarchive.hpp to basic_text_oprimitive<std::ostream>( os, static_cast<bool>(0 != (flags & no_codecvt)) ) Robert Ramey

3 2

Serialization compile errors on CW9
by Miro Jurisic 18 Apr '04

18 Apr '04

I am trying to play with Serialization #18 on CodeWarrior 9, and I ran into the following problems: mbstate_t is not in the global namespace when using CW9 and MW STL (I didn't test with gcc STL). This caused compile errors in archive/codecvt_null.hpp. I altered the workaround already present for Borland, but I believe this is the wrong answer, because it puts a using declaration in a header file. Inside iterator_facade, I had to change: Derived const& derived() const { return static_cast<Derived const&>(*this); } to Derived const& derived() const { return *static_cast<Derived const*>(this); } Without that change, CW gives a warning saying that the function returns a reference to an automatic variable. I am pretty sure the warning is wrong, but this change silenced it, and I don't have the time to read over the spec to find out if the warning is correct or not. That leaves me with the following two errors in compiling text_oarchive.cpp... I am not sure what to do about these two errors, but I am too tired to stare at them right now, so I am posting them here in hope that someone can make sense out of them... the second error in particular makes no sense to me at all. meeroh Error : illegal explicit conversion from 'boost::iterator_facade<boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks<boost::archi ve::iterators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transform_width<cons t char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, char, boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, char, char>' to 'const char *' (instantiating: 'boost::archive::basic_text_oprimitive<std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char>>>::save_binary(const void *, unsigned long)') (instantiating: 'std::copy<boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks<boost::archive::iterators ::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, boost::archive::iterators::ostream_iterator<char>>(boost::archive::iterators::ins ert_linebreaks<boost::archive::iterators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iter ators::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks<boost::archive::iterators::base64_fr om_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, boost::archive::iterators::ostream_iterator<char>)') (instantiating: 'boost::operator!=<boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks<boost::archive::i terators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, char, boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, char, char, boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks<boost::archive::iterators::base64_fr om_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, char, boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, char, char>(const boost::iterator_facade<boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks<boost::archiv e::iterators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, char, boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, char, char> &, const boost::iterator_facade<boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks<boost::archiv e::iterators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, char, boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, char, char> &)') (instantiating: 'boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks<boost::archive::iterators::base64_f rom_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>::insert_linebreaks<boost::iterator_facade<boost::archive::iterators::insert _linebreaks<boost::archive::iterators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterato rs::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, char, boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, char, char>>(boost::iterator_facade<boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks<boost: :archive::iterators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transform_widt h<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, char, boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, char, char>)') (instantiating: 'boost::archive::iterators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transfo rm_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>::base64_from_binary<boost::iterator_facade<boost::archive::iterators::inser t_linebreaks<boost::archive::iterators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterat ors::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, char, boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, char, char>>(boost::iterator_facade<boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks<boost: :archive::iterators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transform_widt h<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, char, boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, char, char>)') (instantiating: 'boost::archive::iterators::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>::transform_width<boost::iterator_facade<boost::archive::iterators::insert_l inebreaks<boost::archive::iterators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterators ::transform_width<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, char, boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, char, char>>(boost::iterator_facade<boost::archive::iterators::insert_linebreaks<boost: :archive::iterators::base64_from_binary<boost::archive::iterators::transform_widt h<const char *, 6, 8, char>, char>, 72, char>, char, boost::single_pass_traversal_tag, char, char>)') transform_width.hpp line 105 super_t(Base(BOOST_MAKE_PFTO_WRAPPER(static_cast<T>(start)))), Error : object 'boost::archive::text_oarchive_impl<boost::archive::text_oarchive>::text_oarchive _impl `base constructor'(std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char>> &, unsigned int)' redefined (instantiating: 'boost::archive::text_oarchive_impl<boost::archive::text_oarchive>::text_oarchive _impl `base constructor'(std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char>> &, unsigned int)') text_oarchive.hpp line 61 text_oarchive_impl(std::ostream & os, unsigned int flags = 0) : -- If this message helped you, consider buying an item from my wish list: <http://web.meeroh.org/wishlist>

3 2

Re: [boost] Using Serialization for binary marshalling
by Robert Ramey 17 Apr '04

17 Apr '04

Matthew Vogt wrote: > Is anyone else interested in using Robert Ramey's serialization library > for the purpose of marshalling data into pre-determined binary formats? Interest has been expressed for XDR in the past. Basically, I see this as a very positive thing and want to do everything I can to support your efforts. Your code supports save and load for two new formats (XDR and CDR). This is a valuable contribution. I'm also pleased that the serialization library has been deemed (at least by one person) to be worthy of investment of such an effort ( 1500 lines of code !). I took a little time to scan your attachments. My examination was cursory and feel free to correct any thing I didn't get right. Here are my comments. 1) I wonder why you derived ordered_oarchive from basic_binary_oprimitive<Archive, OStream> . It doesn't seem that any of the functionality basic_binary_oprimitive actually used. I presume the same goes for ordered_iarchive . 2) there's some stuff in boost that addresses alignment in a guaranteed? Portable manner that may relevant here. Sse #include <boost/aligned_storage.hpp> . BTW - the best way to make your code portable without cluttering up with #ifdef etc... is to use more boost stuff - let other people clutter up their code with #ifdef all over the place. 3) I'm curious about the override for the saving of vector. It seems to me equivalent to the one included with the system. And if vector requires special treatment, what about the list, et al. This doesn't seem necessary to me. Perhaps the fact that I did treat strings specially was misleading. I considered this a special case. I don't think vectors are in this context. 4) Missing license, authorship etc. Also add more comments and description and explanation of motivation for things that might not be obvious. This is a work of literature and art that will live for a long time - make it worthy. 5) I took great pains to organize code so that users of the library would not be including things that were strictly implementation. This is the origin of the *.ipp files. You might want to consider the same. Any template that does have a serializable type as a parameter (ie only archive) is a candidate for this treatment. In fact I would like to see a more "formal" separation of interface and implementation. 6) Get the bjam system running if you haven't already. It would be quite easy to add your archives to the set tested. Currenty, the test system runs about 30-40 tests on each archive type. It's a torture test ( and still I'm finding bugs). I think it would take you maybe an hour to tweak the bjam script and the code in serialization/test/test_tools.hpp to run all the tests on your own archive classes - ( maybe I should add information on doing this to the manual - it never occurred to me that someone would get to this point so soon) This is an absolute must if you want to have your addition seriously considered. 7) I'm just a little queasy about using the term marshalling. In fact any of the archive implementations could be used for marshalling - not just a binary one (XML is the favorite flavor of the month). So I think it's sort of misleading. I think it is very helpful that your naming scheme xdr_oarchive, cdr_oarchive, leverages on the existing one. 8) in my native binary archive, I used a template parameter for the stream class. As it stands, I don't test or use the corresponding archive for wide character streams because the WEOF would need special treatment. I haven't spent any time on this. Perhaps you've addressed this in some way. I didn't look in that much detail. I suspect that's enough to keep you motivated. Good luck and thanks for working on and with the library. Robert Ramey

2 1