- Boost - lists.boost.org

[numeric_conversion] Compilation errors with msvc-14.1 and std:c++latest in master branch
by Adam Wulkiewicz 02 Aug '17

02 Aug '17

Hi, I noticed there are compilation errors in master branch and not in develop branch. Only runs with cxxflags= std:c++latest are failing. See e.g.: http://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/output/teeks99-09-q… Affecting Geometry: http://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/output/teeks99-09-q… Regards, Adam

1 0

[release-1.65] changes in master
by Oliver Kowalke 01 Aug '17

01 Aug '17

Will commits that have been added to branch master in the last days be included into release 1.65? ty, Oliver

2 1

[BB++] 17 minutes long documentary
by Phil Bouchard 01 Aug '17

01 Aug '17

Like I promised, here's a 17 minutes long documentary on BB++ which now shows its internals: https://youtu.be/GrNDYWyasxg Regards, -Phil

3 3

[outcome] Outcome v2 has reached stability, WG21 paper will be P0762R0
by Niall Douglas 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

For boost-dev's information: https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6qo1m3/outcome_v2_has_reached_stabili… --- cut -- I am pleased to announce that Outcome v2, rewritten to fulfil the Boost peer review feedback from May and only reaching feature completeness three weeks ago, has been successfully deployed into two complex libraries which were heavily using Outcome v1. Lots of bug fixes and maturity has resulted, and if you were holding off on deploying Outcome into your own code until now, now is the time! The code itself is now ready for a second Boost peer review, it has all the same testing that v1 had, and I am highly confident as to its quality. What solely remains before Outcome v2 can reenter the Boost peer review queue for a second review is the documentation which remains parlous (and any help with it is greatly appreciated!), and the "Boostification" cronjob script as the peer review wants a "pure Boost" submission. I am also going to have to fix a number of bugs in Standardese the documentation tool first, it currently segfaults when fed the Outcome headers :). @foonathan's tool shows lots of promise, it does far better with C++ 17 than doxygen, just need to shave off some rough edges in the tool. What comes before that though is writing a WG21 paper P0762R0 summarising the Boost peer review which led to the stripped down, barebones v2 `result<T, E>` design and the rationale for the design deviations from `expected<T, E>` as according to the Boost peer review feedback. If WG21 feel warm feelings about a `std::result<T, E>` after reading P0762R0, then I will prepare a formal standardisation proposal for the Library Evolution Working Group (LEWG) and get the ball rolling for standardisation by attending meetings from 2018 onwards until it's through. I'll announce any draft D0762R0 here when it's ready for people to comment and give feedback on soon. My thanks to everyone here on Reddit, on boost-dev, on SG14 low latency, and privately who have helped out with testing, documentation, and so much more in making this library happen. I know those coming from Rust-land feel amazement how long it has taken C++ to replicate Rust's `Result<T, E>`, but I'm very sure ours is enormously superior to theirs already simply by doing so much less because it doesn't need to. Taking time to get design **right** is one of the big things which continues to separate C++ from the upstart systems programming languages. Long may it continue! --- context --- Outcome provides a C++ 14 STL-quality `result<T, EC>` and an `outcome<T, EC, E>` implementation of success|failure value transports, and is expected to pass a second Boost peer review and be submitted for C++ standardisation as the lowest level of an overall framework as proposed by: - http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0650r0.pdf C++ Monadic interface - http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0323r2.pdf A proposal to add a utility class to represent expected object (Revision 4) The idea is that result/outcome are the extremely lightweight struct-like success|failure value transports suitable for usage in public APIs, whereas expected is the much richer variant-like monadic success|failure value transports, and everything participates together under P0650R0. Outcome is a pure header only library with no dependencies. It works best with C++ 17 and Concepts enabled, but can work with C++ 14 on these compilers or better: - clang 4.0 (5.0 required for Windows) - GCC 7 (VS2017 Update 3 RTM is supposed to work too according to Microsoft, my thanks to them for swiftly fixing the several ICEs I reported) Github: https://github.com/ned14/outcome Docs (highly incomplete): https://ned14.github.io/outcome/ Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

2 4

Boost 1.65.0 Beta 1
by Marshall Clow 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

Boost release 1.65.0 beta 1 is now available at: <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.65.0.beta.1/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: d54d29568c4e4933cbfe40a292b6cb84a7f68121e34f6a83f7d0f7c652b6b2d8 boost_1_65_0_beta1.7z 092676557513e992347d30dd0cd058fb8af2a401e5da4f4413f5b577852d726b boost_1_65_0_beta1.tar.bz2 31fa3c807e2205e18f7d5c74f77f540677f7b0937af1e37f595c137e1e87bf84 boost_1_65_0_beta1.tar.gz 83c8d8b76fa9591572226a1a49fd191d76db3011b52b907cbbc8d37d46213bd2 boost_1_65_0_beta1.zip Please download the beta, give it a try, and report any problems you encounter. Thanks, -- The Boost Release Team

6 8

[Boost] file transfer
by vikram.smvdu 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

I recently started learning asio. Documentation is very awesome. I am planing to make a server where there is a file base. And client can login or connect and access the file.. is this possible. I am unable to send data from client to server.. server can sent but vise versa is not implemented by me.. i am trying.. if any body can point me a direction.. it will be much helpful Thank you Regards V Sent from Samsung Mobile

2 1

[BB++] 5 minutes long documentary
by Phil Bouchard 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

Like I promised, here's a 5 minutes long documentary on BB++: https://youtu.be/vXmddU_FS30 Regards, -Phil

2 3

CMake and Boost Build tests
by Edward Diener 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

Following John Maddock's appeal for practical solutions related to the move to CMake, I would like to know what the CMake equivalent is to the Boost Build unit test functionality. In other words what do I write for CMake in order to do a Boost Build compile, compile-fail, link, link-fail, run, and run-fail unit tests ? Does CMake have an equivalent to the Boost Build alias rule ? or the Boost Build project rule ? The great majority of the Boost libraries are header-only libraries where Boost Build is used to run the unit tests and, optionally, Boost Build is used to build the documentation using a quickbook, boostbook, doxygen toolset to generate html and pdf files. While I realize that building a Boost library, and making that built library available to end-users via CMake, has been the focus of most of the discussion so far regarding CMake and Boost, I am assuming the move to CMake also means that running unit tests and building docs where applicable must also be done through CMake. If I am wrong about this then I personally will be only too happy to continue using Boost Build to do these things.

14 47

[GitHub] Can boostorg/do-not-use be safely deleted?
by Louis Dionne 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

We have this repository: https://github.com/boostorg/do-not-use. The description says Permissions experiments; will disappear without notice. I'd like to confirm that this can safely be removed before I go do it. Louis -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/GitHub-Can-boostorg-do-not-use-be-safely… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

5 4

Dependency report
by Peter Dimov 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

I haven't run one of these in a while, so here it is. http://pdimov.com/tmp/report-develop-6db78a0a6/module-overview.html http://pdimov.com/tmp/report-develop-6db78a0a6/module-levels.html http://pdimov.com/tmp/report-develop-6db78a0a6/module-weights.html We have one "supermodule" at level 5 and another at level 13.

7 33