- Boost - lists.boost.org

[review] Review of Nowide has finished
by Frédéric Bron 22 Jun '17

22 Jun '17

Thanks for you interest and the discussion. Please be patient, it will take a few days for me to compile all the discussions and give the result of the review. Kind regards, Frédéric

1 0

1.65 closes for new libraries and breaking changes this Friday
by Marshall Clow 22 Jun '17

22 Jun '17

[ The calendar says today, but I forgot to send this out, so we're pushing the deadline back two days. ] Upcoming release dates: 28-Jun: Boost 1.65.0 closed for major changes 5-Jul: Boost 1.65.0 closed for all changes, except by permission of a release manager. 8-Jul: Boost 1.65.0 closed for all changes 12-Jul: Boost 1.65.0 beta; master branch re-opened 2-Aug: Release closed for all changes, except by permission of a release manager. 5-Aug: Boost 1.65.0 closed for all changes 9-Aug: Boost 1.65.0 release -- Marshall

1 0

Re: [boost] [review] Review of Nowide (Unicode)
by Yakov Galka 21 Jun '17

21 Jun '17

Dear all, Here is my review of the library. - What is your evaluation of the design? > I welcome the UTF-8 approach on Window. However, the fact that Nowide does not handle invalid UTF-16 transparently is an issue that has to be addressed. - What is your evaluation of the implementation? > Going through the code I can't spot any implementation issues. > - What is your evaluation of the documentation? > It's clear. No issues found. > - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? > I already use this approach through a different implementation. Even though I wouldn't bring Boost just for that single library, for projects that already use Boost it might be a valuable addition. I do think that Nowide offers a superior solution to encoding issues compared to Boost.Filesystem. > - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any > problems? > I did try it years ago when it was first submitted to Boost. I didn't try the recent version, so NO. > - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick > reading? In-depth study? > 30 minutes reading the code + mailing list discussions. > - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? > I rate myself as an expert. I'm a co-author of utf8everywhere.org. DISCLAIMER: I met Artyom a couple times IRL. > - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be > sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure > your overall opinion. > Conditional acceptance, subject to transparent invalid UTF-16 resolution. -- Yakov Galka http://stannum.co.il/

4 3

[review] Last day to send your review of Nowide (Unicode)
by Frédéric Bron 21 Jun '17

21 Jun '17

Dear all, This is the last day to submit your review of Artyom Beilis' Nowide library. So far, 12 people participated to the review (not counting the author and the review manager): - Andrzej Krzemienski - Chris Glover - Degski - Edward Diener - Gavin Lambert - Niall Douglas - Norbert Wenzel - Paul Groke - Peter Dimov - Vadim Zeitlin - Yakov Galka - Zach Laine 8 reviews where received including * 6 reviews said nowide should be accepted (with conditions): - Degski, - Peter Dimov - Andrzej Krzemienski - Chris Glover - Norbert Wenzel - Yakov Galka * 1 review did not choose between accept/do not accept: - Paul Groke * 1 review said nowide should not be accepted as is: - Zach Laine Your participation is encouraged, as the proposed library is uncoupled, focused and rather small. Nowadays, everyone needs to handle Unicode but this is very difficult using only the standard library in a platform independant way. Nowide offers a very simple way to handle Unicode the same way on Windows/MacOS/Linux. Key features: * work with UTF-8 in your code, Nowide converts to OS encoding * Easy to use functions for converting UTF-8 to/from UTF-16 * A class to fixing argc, argc and env main parameters to use UTF-8 * UTF-8 aware functions: - stdio.h functions (fopen, freopen, remove, rename) - stdlib.h functions (system, getenv, setenv, unsetenv, putenv) - fstream (filebuf, fstream/ofstream/ifstream) - iostream (cout, cerr, clog, cin) Documentation: http://cppcms.com/files/nowide/html GitHub: https://github.com/artyom-beilis/nowide git clone https://github.com/artyom-beilis/nowide.git Latest tarballs: - to be unzipped in boost source: https://github.com/artyom-beilis/nowide/archive/master.zip - as a standalone library: http://cppcms.com/files/nowide/nowide_standalone.zip Nowide has standard boost layout. So, just put it into the boost source tree under libs/nowide directory for building and running tests. Or alternatively - for header only part of the library add the nowide/include path to the include path of your projects. Please post your comments and review to the boost mailing list (preferably), or privately to the Review Manager (to me ;-). Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: - 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 what compiler? 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? And most importantly: - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure your overall opinion. For more information about Boost Formal Review Process, see: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html Thank you very much for your time and efforts. Frédéric

1 0

[sort] Timsort review result
by Steven Ross 21 Jun '17

21 Jun '17

After reviewing the responses, I have rejected Timsort. Here are the reasons: 1. No author/maintainer responses to the questions on boost (except for forwarding some documentation links). We need a maintainer for all our source, and I'm not volunteering to maintain new functions as complex as Timsort. 2. There was no response on the Timsort bug reported during the review, nor any tests for it. 3. We need better tests. 4. Francisco is including a more efficient stable sort as part of his additions to the library, including handling special cases like Timsort handles better than stable_sort does. Francisco will maintain his code. I'd like to note that many people THINK they are experts on sorting because they covered it in class or may have read about it in a textbook, but most do not understand hybrid sorts well. As a specific example, I saw O(N*log(N)) mentioned as the worst-case speed limit of general-case sorts, when in fact Spreadsort beats that as described in its docs: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_61_0/libs/sort/doc/html/index.html#sort.ove… Many people also don't carefully analyze for worst-case performance, which can be tricky. With regards to future sorting library reviews, I'll get at least a one-page doc describing the algorithm for the review in advance, but the boost documentation formatting is an unreasonable request for a simple sorting function, and I don't see the value it adds for these simple reviews. It is useful for a full library, but we'll be integrating the documentation into our full library after a new function is accepted. It isn't accurate to call it a mini-review (as described here: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Fast-Track) because it's reviewing completely new source we're talking about adding to the library. That said, do you still want me to a call the upcoming one for pdqsort a "mini-review"?

3 3

Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
by Thomas Heller 20 Jun '17

20 Jun '17

Am 20.06.2017 2:17 nachm. schrieb "Niall Douglas via Boost" < boost(a)lists.boost.org>: On 20/06/2017 07:27, P F wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost >> <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: >> >> I've finished the mockup which can be studied at: >> >> https://github.com/ned14/boost-bmv-cmake >> >> Just Boost.System was cmakeified. Extensive comments are throughout >> to explain every single line of cmake and why it's there. A small >> sample program is in the root of the repo to show how this cmake >> would be used by end user programs. > > Here some feedback, I have: > > - Having things like `::hl` or `::sl` is quite strange. In cmake, I > set `BUILD_SHARED_LIBS=On` when I want a shared library or I set it > to `BUILD_SHARED_LIBS=Off` when I want a static library. There should > only be one target `boost::config` or `boost::system` that I use. BUILD_SHARED_LIBS is a cmake2-ism and should not be present in modern cmake. Moreover, cmake now supports header only libraries, and BUILD_SHARED_LIBS causes problems with eventual C++ Modules support. The ::hl suffix means "link against the header only library edition", the ::sl suffix means "link against the static library edition" and the ::dl suffix means "link against the dynamic library edition". Err, I tend to highly disagree here. As a library author, I can not know if my users need a static or shared library. For a header only library, this hardly matters. Having those different conventions greatly increases the complexity for consuming your library (which do I need again in which circumstances?) so we need to depend on variables to link against the right target (so much for cmake2isms). Some bikeshedding over those names occurred off list. They don't hugely matter, they could be boost::system::header, boost::system::static and boost::system::shared if you wanted. Some bikeshedding also occurred over what boost::system with no suffix should mean. I recommend "whatever library edition the maintainer recommends as the best one" which is NOT necessarily the header only edition. For example, in the future with C++ Modules support the additional suffixs ::hlm, ::slm and ::dlm will be needed. Or longer named, boost::system::header_module, boost::system::static_module and boost::system::shared_module. So if C++ Modules were available, the maintainer might recommend the ::dlm variety, but recommend the ::hl variety if they weren't available. I think that will hugely vary per library as C++ Modules won't necessarily be always a win. Also, end users may wish to assemble all of Boost into a single C++ Module. We don't want to get in the way. > - Each project do things like > `include("${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/../../cmake/BoostVersion.cmake”)` > which is broken when built on its own. That was intentional. Some bikeshedding occurred over that too with respect to which Boost library guaranteed to be a dependency for all other libraries ought to host the version setting script. Boost.Config is most likely. So the above is a placeholder. > - Doing `if(NOT TARGET boost::assert::hl)` is wrong. A target does > not have to exists to be able to link against it. Plus, it should > call `find_package(boost_assert)` to bring in the target for when its > not built in the superproject. That part is there solely to enable modular build. If you don't want to bother with modular build as this is a bare minimum viable cmakeification, you can eliminate it. > - There is no installation of the targets Not necessary right now, so out of scope. > - Doing `target_include_directories(boost_core-hl INTERFACE > "include”)` is wrong as this will only add the include directories > for the build. The include directories should be added for the build > and for the installation. As I've repeatedly explained now, installation logic is best implemented by a rootmost CMakeLists. Not in the per-library CMakeLists. We do tell cmake what targets are used by installation via install(TARGETS ...). That's the bare minimum needed for other cmake to implement the remaining installation logic. (On wider picture stuff, install paths need to be absolute I've found, whereas build paths can usually be relative. Relative paths are much nicer during build. In a rootmost CMakeLists which implements some installation logic, you'd iterate the targets for the Boost libraries and configure each programmatically for the appropriate install for that library and that type of library. All the metadata you need to make decisions is available) Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/ _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/ mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

2 5

Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
by Thomas Heller 20 Jun '17

20 Jun '17

Am 20.06.2017 4:21 nachm. schrieb "Peter Dimov via Boost" < boost(a)lists.boost.org>: Thomas Heller wrote: > As a general observation, I see a lot of statements along the lines of "I > state that XYZ is preferable over UVW", it would be nice to have to have > background information (pros and cons anyone? what do the cmake > authors/docs have to say about this?) on those statements so that everyone > can form their own opinion instead of having to choose whom to trust about > what's "standard" cmake. > That's the problem with CMake, there's no way for someone like me who does not follow it to get a definitive answer to what idiomatic CMake 3.5+ is. There are several articles about it, they all say more or less the same thing - use target_*. I get that. But that's not enough. I see a general (and very predictable) trend of moving from imperative to declarative. Programmers like imperative, but a proper build system really prefers declarative, so CMake is trying to evolve towards declarative. Take for example find_package. It's a command, find me this package, now. But it's much better if a library does not issue "find me this package" commands, but rather declares which packages it needs. So we get "best practice" hacks like redefining find_package. I'm sorry, this doesn't feel right. I hear what you're saying. We'll end up innovating cmake, which for me isn't a bad thing. I'm favoring CMake due to its great support for generating for all kinds of different environments (including proper visual studio solutions). To be fair, I haven't invested as much time in boost.build as I did for cmake. For all platforms I work on, both work equally nice with different quircks on different ends. I'm not using an ide though. For the sake of ide support, I'd lean towards cmake. Regarding the discussion of what's right and wrong when writing your CMakeLists.txt files, it's almost bike shedding. If you want to depend on a library, you'll make it work, no matter what, that's what we do. Nevertheless, in terms of cmakeisms, I really like what Paul put together and what Daniel Pfeifer said in his talk makes a lot of sense in a cmake world. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman /listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

proposal - modularize Boost build system
by Stefan Seefeld 20 Jun '17

20 Jun '17

One of Boost's bottlenecks is its monolithic build infrastructure. It would be beneficial for many different use cases (testing, packaging, etc.) to decouple the building of Boost libraries (well, those that require building, see the listing in http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_64_0/more/getting_started/unix-variants.htm…) such that they may optionally be built stand-alone. At present, building a Boost library requires the entire (super-)repository to be checked out, and the build logic itself involves traversing the entire source tree, looking for a "Jamroot". What would be beneficial to many would be a workflow like this: 1) Have a development environment with (some version of) Boost pre-installed (or at least the parts that the library being built depends on). 2) Check out a single Boost repository (e.g., https://github.com/boostorg/python) 3) Invoke a command to build it (if there is anything to build) 4) Invoke a command to test it 5) Invoke a command to install it 6) Invoke a command to package it (optional) While it's of course already possible to do all the above by adding support for another build infrastructure (point in case: Boost.Python right now uses SCons for this very reason), this means duplication of effort, as Boost as a whole is still built, tested (and even packaged for binary packages) using Boost.Build, meaning I need to maintain two sets of build infrastructure. This proposal thus has two parts: 1) Make the nested build logic independent of the outer bits, so individual libraries can be built stand-alone (for example, using b2 by adding a `--with-boost` set of options to point to the location of the prerequisite parts of Boost). 2) Define a clear interface the outer build logic will use to invoke the nested build commands. Note that for my own case above (Boost.Python), providing 2) would be enough, i.e. by having a way for me to "plug in" my SCons commands to build and test Boost.Python could obsolete the existing Boost.Build logic as defined in Boost.Python (as well as the prerequisite parts in Boost.Build's "python" module). However, as my proposal is *not* actually advocating to move away from Boost.Build, but rather to modularize it, I think 1) is essential to let everyone else (who may not be inclined to use anything other than Boost.Build) to also take advantage of modularization. While I'd rather avoid delving into the technical details of how this could possibly be implemented (if you really must, *please* do so in a new thread !), let me outline a few use-cases that would be made possible by the above: * individual projects would be free to switch to their preferred infrastructure, including CMake, SCons, etc., if they so wish * individual projects could be much more easily developed and contributed to * individual projects could be much more easily tested, notably in CI environments * individual projects could be much more easily packaged All of the above advantages are *huge*, and reflect real-world needs, and the technical issues to solve these are all minor. The question really is whether there is enough will to move into that direction. I'd be very happy to participate in the work needed to implement this. But first we need to agree that this is where we want to go. Thanks, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...

14 46

Review of Nowide
by Chris Glover 20 Jun '17

20 Jun '17

Hi, The following is my review of the proposed Boost.Nowide library. This is my first official review of a boost library, so please forgive me if I've missed anything. - What is your evaluation of the design? At first I was surprised by lack of a platform agnostic encoding. However, through reading the docs and the discussion in the list, I believe this to be the correct choice. If a user has a need for a common encoding, I believe that would be best served by a different library that would ultimately have different issues and performance characteristics. One thing I'm not sure about is if the overlap between the fstream implementations in filesystem and nowide is necessary. It seems to me that if I set filesystem to be nowide aware (via boost::nowide::nowide_filesystem) then there's little reason for the nowide versions of the stream objects to exist, other than possibly eliminating one string copy on non-windows platforms and avoiding the filesystem dependency (and maybe those are good enough reasons). - What is your evaluation of the implementation? I only gave the implementation a glance. It looks good; clean, organized; with a full test suite and nothing weird stands out. It seems to be of the typical quality I expect from a boost library. - What is your evaluation of the documentation? The documentation is clear and complete, but I think it needs to explain at the top that the library does not present a uniform encoding for strings. This is discussed in the documentation near the end, under "Q & A", but I think it should be near the top. A suggestion is to add a section called "What Boost.Nowide is *not*" directly under the section titled "What is Boost.Nowide", otherwise I expect some users to be surprised. - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? It is very useful. I am already using it. - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? I converted one application that was using boost::filesystem::path to transport filenames around to use nowide instead. I had no issues, everything just worked. Some code was also simplified as a result -- not dramatically, but enough that it felt better. I tested the application on windows only using Visual Studio 2017. I also ran the tests under MSYS2 on Windows using gcc-6.3, on Windows using MSVC 2017 and on Ubuntu using gcc-7. Under MSYS, one test failed (Fail: Error boost::nowide::cin.putback(c) in test_iostream.cpp:17 main), but I haven't had a chance to look into why yet. All of the tests passed on the other platforms. - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? I followed the discussion, read the docs, integrated the library, used the API and tested the resulting program. All in, I think that took me about 4 hours. This seems quick, but to me that is a testament to a solid design and clear documentation because the conversion process was very simple. - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? I am aware of the problem and have worked around it in the past by using filesystem::path as a string. However, most of the environments I work in professionally are controlled in a way that allows us to avoid this problem most of the time, so I have not had extensive experience with it. - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Yes. I am already using it and expect I will be using it a lot more going forward. -- chris

2 2

[nowide] review
by Andrzej Krzemienski 20 Jun '17

20 Jun '17

Hi All. This is a review of Boost.Nowide library. I am not really familiar with the problem. I used to do trivial tasks with files on Windows, but they were always ASCII, so the problems solved by Boost.Nowide never affected me. I am also not fa,iliar with the problems of converting from Windows encoding (*WTF* seems like the right choice of name) to UTF-8. I have read the documentation, and got some additional information from the author. I have downloaded the library and have run a toy program that plays with names that cannot be encoded in a single code-page. I am testing on Windows 7, MinGW, GCC 6.3, with -std=c++03. Compilation and linking works fine. Tests work fine too. Then, I tried the same example with normal `std::ifstream` and it did not work on Unicode file names and strings, which conforms that Boost.Nowide solves an existing problem. DESIGN: clear, logical, intuitive. IMPLEMENTATION: I did not look at. DOCUMENTATION: clear. POTENTIAL USEFULNESS: as specified in the docs, if you want to do things with multilingual strings in a platform independent way, you need a library like this. I vote to *ACCEPT* the library. I may not be qualified enough (the manager will weigh my vote), but the desctiption of the library, as well as the replies from Artyom convince me that the library addresses the problem in the right way and is reliable. Artyom, thanks for sharing this library, and submitting it for review. One minor thing. In th be docs (http://cppcms.com/files/nowide/html/) we read: boost::nowide::widen <http://cppcms.com/files/nowide/html/namespaceboost_1_1nowide.html#a6baacc1b…> returns std::string. I thing is thsould be std::wstring? Regards, &rzej;

2 5