- Boost - lists.boost.org

Mini review of the Fit library
by Glen Fernandes 21 Sep '17

21 Sep '17

What follows is my mini review of the Fit library. I had no time to write a full review, but feel that most of my points have been covered by others in both the first and this second review. A. Should the library be accepted into Boost? Yes; I vote to accept Fit - with no conditions for acceptance. B. What is your evaluation of the design? I found it: 1. Practical: For facilities like BOOST_FIT_LIFT. 2. Innovative: For facilities like infix(). And overall useful. C. What is your evaluation of the implementation? Good. Appears to be correct C++ code, and is definitely written in a very maintainable way. Ordinarily I'm in favor of not seeing macros used for what is accomplished by FIT_INHERIT_DEFAULT, FIT_INHERIT_CONSTRUCTOR, and similar, but this is a minor thing, and it does serve to make the code smaller and easier to review. I also like that the lowest version of C++ standard support required is C++11 (and not higher), as I am still aware of a large enough pre-C++14 user base that do have access to and use Boost libraries. D. What is your evaluation of the documentation? Excellent. Better than what I generally write. Useful enough for me, and in my opinion, sufficient for understanding the library and learning how to use it - for any user that takes the time to read through it all. E. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? I believe it to be useful, and I know of at one developer that I have suggested Fit to, that has started using it - and another that would like to start using it if it is included in a Boost release (for which their organization has blanket approval to use). F. Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you have any problems? Not recently, but Yes. With g++ 6.3. I encountered no problems. G. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? I had spent at least 3+ hours looking into Fit with the intention of reviewing it for my own use, and learning how one part of it was implemented. I did not have a chance to spend as much time as I would normally have to write a full review of the library. H. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Familiar with enough functional programming design and generic programming to appreciate the library. Other notes: No concern about the name. We have Beast, Hana, Spirit; Fit is a fine enough name, and boost::fit:: is a convenient enough prefix. Glen

2 1

docs to release a new lib
by Lorenzo Caminiti 21 Sep '17

21 Sep '17

Hello all, Where are the latest docs to add a new lib to Boost (including regression tests, PDF docs, etc.)? Poking around a bit I found the following links... https://svn.boost.org/trac10/wiki/StartModMaint https://svn.boost.org/trac10/wiki/DeveloperChecklist I'm asking because I'm considering adding Boost.Contract to the Boost 1.66.0 release. Thanks a lot! --Lorenzo

1 0

[review] Final Notice! Fit Review Ends Today!
by Matt Calabrese 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

Hi everyone, The formal review of the Fit library is ending today, September 20th. For anyone who was waiting until the last minute to submit a review, this would be it. Anything that you can provide is helpful in making a decision, even if you do not write a complete review of the entire library. You can find Fit for review at these links: Source: https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit/tree/boost Docs: http://pfultz2.github.io/Fit/doc/html/doc/ Please provide in your review whatever information you think is valuable to understand your final choice of ACCEPT or REJECT including Fit as a Boost library. Please be explicit about your decision. Some other questions you might want to consider answering: - What is your evaluation of the design? - What is your evaluation of the implementation? - What is your evaluation of the documentation? - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? - Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you have any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? - Were the concerns from the March 2016 review of Fit addressed? More information about the Boost Formal Review Process can be found here: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html Thank you for participating! -- -Matt Calabrese

1 0

Re: [boost] [review][Fit] Review of Fit starts today
by Jason Rice 19 Sep '17

19 Sep '17

Please consider this review for the proposed Boost.Fit library. I recommend the review manager ACCEPT this library for inclusion in Boost without condition. # What is your evaluation of the design? - Making high order functions easier and more concise is a good idea. - I like the point-free programming features. - Some of the names, conventions, and errors would take any kind of user some getting used to. - A version of `alias_value` that works in a generic context where the type might not be an alias would be more useful I think. # What is your evaluation of the implementation? - The code is consistent across implementations and the files are pretty flat - Each function can be included independently which is nice. - It appears that there is some effort towards making errors easier to read. For instance, I called `fit::partial` with too many arguments and the error was "error: no member named 'fit_function_param_limit'" - There is some readability issues due to compiler compatibility support and specific compiler error workarounds. - I noticed `fit::decay` is not used in the tests at all. It gets included in `example.h` but is never used. # What is your evaluation of the documentation? - I like that the documentation is easy to read in the comments of each file. - Some of the wording in the descriptions weren't very helpful for me personally, but the "Semantics" section seemed to always get the point of the function across. # What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? - It seems parts of the library might not be that useful if you have constexpr lambdas, but I believe there are still features that enable more concise coding even against latest C++17 features. - I will probably use this library now that I am familiar with it. # Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you have any problems? - I made a couple of my own examples. - I used a fairly recent fork of clang trunk with c++1z. - BOOST_FIT_RETURNS *crashed the compiler* when I was trying to construct an std::array with some pack expansion. It looked like it crashed the parser. # How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? - I spent a couple of hours looking at the docs in the source and making my own test programs to see how it could be used. # Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? - I've used Boost.Hana a lot with its "functional" features. - I've done a lot of point free programming with RamdaJS in Javascript # Were the concerns from the March 2016 review of Fit addressed? N/A For what it's worth here is a link to some of my attempts to sample the library: https://gist.github.com/ricejasonf/9bfd233b3bc282eae9ecb8bc3198d948 Thank You, Jason Rice

2 1

[Container] small flat set ?
by Phil Endecott 18 Sep '17

18 Sep '17

Dear all, boost::container::small_vector and boost::container::static_vector are great. boost::container::flat_set is great too. But today I need a small_flat_set! And I don't think it's possible to compose flat_set and small_vector. (flat_set can use a custom allocator, but it can't take a custom implementation type in the way that, for example, std::priority_queue can.) Having said that, maybe composing flat_set and small_vector (or static_vector) isn't the optimum solution for the case where I will store something like 0...4 ints; I suspect that linear search in an unordered sequence will be quicker. But that gets complicated if you need iterators with the normal behaviour. Any thoughts? Regards, Phil.

5 14

Last Day for Boost Community Dinner Sign up
by Jon Kalb 18 Sep '17

18 Sep '17

Boost Developers, Today is the last day to register for the Boost Community Dinner at CppCon. http://sched.co/Bhcr You do not need to be registered to attend CppCon to register for the Boost Community Dinner: https://cppcon.org/registration/ If you are going to be in the Seattle area a week from Tuesday, join us for a rare face-to-face get together of the Boost Community. See you there. Jon

1 0

[docs] Documentation on Github?
by John Maddock 18 Sep '17

18 Sep '17

I notice that a few libraries are serving their documentation pages on github, for example http://boostorg.github.io/quickbook/doc/html/index.html How is this being done? Thanks! John. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com

8 8

[review] Reminder that Fit Review Is Ending Soon. Please review!
by Matt Calabrese 16 Sep '17

16 Sep '17

Hi everyone, The formal review of the Fit library was scheduled to end tomorrow, September 17. At this point we do not have very many reviews and so we are extending the review period until the 20th. Anyone who can is encouraged to participate. Anything that you can provide is helpful in making a decision, even if you do not write a complete review of the entire library. You can find Fit for review at these links: Source: https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit/tree/boost Docs: http://pfultz2.github.io/Fit/doc/html/doc/ Please provide in your review whatever information you think is valuable to understand your final choice of ACCEPT or REJECT including Fit as a Boost library. Please be explicit about your decision. Some other questions you might want to consider answering: - What is your evaluation of the design? - What is your evaluation of the implementation? - What is your evaluation of the documentation? - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? - Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you have any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? - Were the concerns from the March 2016 review of Fit addressed? More information about the Boost Formal Review Process can be found here: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html Thank you for participating! - Matt Calabrese

1 0

[winapi] Enable Travis and AppVeyor
by Andrey Semashev 16 Sep '17

16 Sep '17

Hi, I'm trying to enable Travis and AppVeyor builds for Boost.WinAPI, and Travis says that I need admin rights on the project to do it: https://travis-ci.org/boostorg/winapi I don't know if AppVeyor also needs admin rights, maybe someone with more experience could clarify. Could I have the admin rights for Boost.WinAPI? Or maybe boostorg admins could do the necessary steps to enable the project in Travis and AppVeyor? Thanks.

2 7

Searching for Review Manager for reflection library without macro
by Antony Polukhin 15 Sep '17

15 Sep '17

Hello, PFR is a C++14 library that provides tuple-like methods for aggregate initializables. Library has a set of predefined operators and useful functions for everyday use. Works with user-defined types without any macro or boilerplate code. Library: https://github.com/apolukhin/magic_get Docs: http://apolukhin.github.io/magic_get/ Boost Library Incubator: http://blincubator.com/bi_library/pfr-pod-flat-reflection/?gform_post_id=16… Anyone wishing to become a Review Manager for the library? Boost libraries that may benefit from PFR: * Convert - for out-of-the-box conversions of user types * Hana - for using user types instead of tuples * Intrusive - for reusing unused bits in user provided types * Serialization - for out-of-the-box serialization of user types * Spirit - for putting rule results into user provided types without Phoenix or Fusion macro * Test - for outputting content of user provided types * TypeTraits - for traits like has_unique_object_representations in C++14 -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

7 9