- Boost - lists.boost.org

VC14 CTP4 Atomic don't compile with boost::chrono durations which are not TriviallyCopyable
by Klaim - Joël Lamotte 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

I was testing my code with VC14 and found this issue. I'm just not sure what to do about it, should I consider it a bug of Boost.Chrono or not? This complete example does not compile in VC14 CTP4: #include <atomic> #include <boost/chrono.hpp> std::atomic<boost::chrono::milliseconds> ms; // error C2338: atomic<T> requires T to be trivially copyable. Using the standard library instead works as expected: #include <atomic> #include <chrono> std::atomic<std::chrono::milliseconds> ms; // no error The compiler is correct that boost::chrono::duration is not trivially copyable (as described on cppreference.com at least) but it seems (from looking at the code) that it's mostly concept check code used in constructors definitions that trigger the problem. So I'm not sure if it should be fixed or not or what to do with this info.

2 3

Boost library incubator problem
by Edward Diener 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

When I go to the Boost Library Incubator at http://rrsd.com/blincubator.com/, click on the libraries listed alphabetically, and then click on any library, I get: "Not Found Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. Perhaps searching will help."

2 5

Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report
by Felix Uhl 08 Nov '14

08 Nov '14

Rob Stewart wrote: > When interviewing C++ developers, I find those using Boost libraries, at least beyond shared_ptr, are rare. > The brand is known by relatively few, and it is used, to any significant extent, by fewer still. > That implies the need to grow our ranks through some form of advertising. I came to the observation that boost is well known in more experienced circles of programmers, but, as you said, not that frequently used. As it was previously mentioned, this issue could be solved by entering collaborations with compiler distributors to include boost, or at least a subset of it in their compiler. The only reason STL is used so heavily is because it is a pseudo part of the language, bundled with every compiler, a consistent, standardised foundation to rely on. If the inclusion of boost was as simple as the inclusion of the STL, more programmers would use it. This is what boost seemed like to me after reading herb sutters books: It is a less coherent extension of STL, an idea of what the future might hold. Imagine how well boost would be known if it was bundled with MSVC and gcc. --- Felix Uhl ________________________________ Von: Rob Stewart<mailto:robertstewart@comcast.net> Gesendet: ‎08.‎11.‎2014 11:48 An: boost(a)lists.boost.org<mailto:boost@lists.boost.org> Betreff: Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report On November 7, 2014 5:35:02 PM EST, Edward Diener <eldiener(a)tropicsoft.com> wrote: >On 11/7/2014 11:23 AM, Robert Ramey wrote: >> Vladimir Prus-3 wrote > > The motivation behind the >> design of the incubator is to "make participation easier" by >decoupling the >> preparation of the review from a specific 1-2 week time frame. It >was also >> specifically designed to not alter the actual Boot Review process. > >Other than lengthening the formal review process to encourage more >people to participate I do not see any means to get people more >interested in reviewing Boost libraries. That is the notion behind the incubator: allow the review period to be open indefinitely, particularly in advance of the formal review period. > As far as the incubator is >concerned I feel it is a good idea but nobody is using it to comment on >libraries. Links from the review queue to the incubator page for each library could help people discover the incubator. > As far as Boost reviews it appears that most programmers are >afraid to even make comments about a potential library in which they >may be interested. Maybe the specter of C++ experts scares them away. Maybe >they feel that they might look foolish if they make a comment which is >based on just a partial understanding of the library involved. What leads you to that conclusion? There are multiple factors that prevent my commenting on a library: * No interest in the domain * No knowledge of the domain * Too busy I realize I'm not in the "too afraid because of experts" camp you describe, but I've not commented on any of the libraries and it isn't due to fear. >Finally there is a decided problem with the lack of people willing to >be >review managers for a library. I think it would be a good idea to >establish a pool of people, with their e-mail addresses, willing to be >review managers and then when a library is on the review queue one of >the review managers would send out e-mail to all people in the pool >asking each one if he would be willing to be the review manager for a >particular library. If no one at a given time in the pool will agree, >then after some pre-established time period the process repeats itself. I've offered to be a review manager a couple of times, but the libraries never went to review or another did the job. However, the last I looked there were multiple libraries I don't feel competent to judge. Being a review manager is more than verifying that examples compile, that documentation exists, etc. One must be able to judge comments and reviews to decide between opposite views, etc. That requires domain knowledge and experience, if not expertise. There are fewer general purpose libraries on tap now. Obviously, folks have more or less time at different periods of their lives, so one can go through periods of no or little participation. There's also the real issue of changes to the industry. As one seeks interesting and lucrative or stable employment, one may target new kinds of development which can mean new languages. Thus, one may retain a more nostalgic interest in C++, but no longer be interested to invest the time needed to be a review manager. To solve those problems requires finding and engaging new blood. When interviewing C++ developers, I find those using Boost libraries, at least beyond shared_ptr, are rare. The brand is known by relatively few, and it is used, to any significant extent, by fewer still. That implies the need to grow our ranks through some form of advertising. ___ Rob (Sent from my portable computation engine) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report
by Felix Uhl 08 Nov '14

08 Nov '14

Robert Ramey wrote: > If you select the "Display Statistics" Button on the Safe Numerics and > display the last 60 days of activity, you can see that the library page has > 50 visits. This is not a huge number. A book on Amazon might > sell 1000 copies and get a couple of reviews (most of whom are > likely the author's relatives). So as the incubator becomes more > a "go to" place to look for libraries, the question of small number > of reviews would solve itself. (hopefully). It seems to me that the whole point that is missing from the incubator is actual usage of it. I like the concept a lot, but do you actually have any plans on how to increase the usage? Just adding features isn’t going to help as long as you haven’t reached a critical point in community size where people start spreading the word on new features. I think this is a very inherent problem to a programmers way of thinking: We envision a great platform, a great framework, a great tool, and set out to implement it, but after doing so, have no idea on how to do follow-up work: Financials, Community building and management, “marketing” or just garnering interest in your project in the first place. In short: What you want to do with the incubator is great, and if it gets going it will quite surely be a great addition to boost. But how will you get it going? --- Felix Uhl Von: Robert Ramey Gesendet: ‎Freitag‎, ‎7‎. ‎November‎ ‎2014 ‎23‎:‎57 An: boost(a)lists.boost.org Edward Diener-3 wrote > Other than lengthening the formal review process to encourage more > people to participate I do not see any means to get people more > interested in reviewing Boost libraries. As far as the incubator is > concerned I feel it is a good idea but nobody is using it to comment on > libraries. > > As far as Boost reviews it appears that most programmers are > afraid to even make comments about a potential library in which they may > be interested. Maybe the specter of C++ experts scares them away. Maybe > they feel that they might look foolish if they make a comment which is > based on just a partial understanding of the library involved. If you select the "Display Statistics" Button on the Safe Numerics and display the last 60 days of activity, you can see that the library page has 50 visits. This is not a huge number. A book on Amazon might sell 1000 copies and get a couple of reviews (most of whom are likely the author's relatives). So as the incubator becomes more a "go to" place to look for libraries, the question of small number of reviews would solve itself. (hopefully). And of course if one can make a review at the moment he's decided to use or discard the library, it's more likely that, being in a state of ecstasy or frustration, he'll display his feelings by making a review while the facts and emotion are fresh in his mind. > Finally there is a decided problem with the lack of people willing to be > review managers for a library. Again, if we had more "pre-reviews" getting a review manager would be a snap. a) a library with a large number of negative pre-reviews will likely not even be selected for review. b) a library with no reviews suggests that it's not getting enough usage to be useful so maybe it's not worth reviewing. b) a library with a large number of positive reviews - it's easy to be the review manager. c) for the rest - well, at least the manager knows what he's in for. That might make it easier. In short, I would hope if we can make the incubator a success, it will help with the shortage of review managers. If any library in the incubator ever gets enough reviews, and gets reviewed, and passes review, I intend to leave all the reviews on display indefinitely. In fact, I intend to allow anyone to post review in the future. Current boost libraries vary a lot in quality but our current setup doesn't make that visible. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Incubator-Status-Report-tp4668747p… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

2 1

pp
by Jan Boehme 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

Hello, the file boost/preprocessor/config/variadics.hpp doesn't exist but is referenced in the pp docs. Regards, Jan

2 2

Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report
by Felix Uhl 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Gordon Woodhull wrote: > We did update the formal review process and related pages to > invite people to use the Incubator to garner feedback before their library > is ready for a formal review. [*] That’s how I found out about it, so I would say the submission to the incubator is at least encouraged by Considering that, it seems a bit weird that the incubator has so little activity. > I don't think Robert ever intended the Incubator to replace the formal review or the role of the Wizards. > Instead, IMO it is better thought of as a replacement for the unscheduled > part of the review schedule (aka the Queue), and a better way to verify > the basic requirements for submitting a library. And reviews can be > submitted and responded to before the formal review, > without getting buried in the mailing list. That’s how I understood it, but from my - admittedly sparse - experience, the mailing list is an excellent place for feedback, because it is guaranteed that quite a few people will actually get the message. When I have my library ready for submission to the incubator, how is anyone going to notice it? Are enough people subscribed to the feeds that a library gets more attention than in the mailing list, or at least attention from different groups of people? It seems like the most fundamental element of the incubator is a dedicated community that is willing to participate, to test and review. And it is clearly missing exactly that. --- Felix Uhl

2 1

Boost on Google+
by Vladimir Prus 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Hi, I've created a Google+ community for Boost, and everybody is welcome to join here: https://plus.google.com/communities/106814259809358442744 I don't have any great plan here, but a lot of tech people are active on G+, so why not? -- Vladimir Prus CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://vladimirprus.com

1 0

Boost.Build 2014.10
by Vladimir Prus 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

New standalone release of Boost.Build is now available from: http://boost.org/build This one is effectively the same as what is bundled in Boost C++ Libraries 1.57 release. It has been a while since previous standalone release, and I know a few people were using nightly builds to conveniently get recent fixes, which is not a perfect arrangement. Turned out that github release system is fairly easy to use, so I should be able to push releases more often in future. Thanks, -- Vladimir Prus CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://vladimirprus.com

2 1

Master open?
by Joaquin M Lopez Munoz 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

Hi, Is master open again for commits targeted at Boost 1.58? Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica

2 1

Re: [boost] Is there interest in a library for string-convertible enums?
by Felix Uhl 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

Gavin Lambert wrote: > Features that I would expect of such a library: > - support for arbitrary non-contiguous values. > - enum value to string. > - string to enum value. That's done already. > - list of all valid values, either as strings or values. > - can indicate whether a given value (string or enum) is a member of > the enumeration. Easy, will do. > - can round-trip (enum -> string -> enum) values that are not members > of the enumeration; of course (string -> enum -> string) is not feasible > for non-members. What would a conversion from an enum that is not a member to a string look like? Should it just be converted to the string representation of the underlying type like “7”? Or something like “MyEnum::7”? Or would the string representation solve a term with bitwise OR like so: “one|two|four”? The latter would be very interesting for bitwise flag enums. > - can specify a custom string value that the enum value generates (not > just the BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE). Yeah I will implement that. Not sure why one would want it, it does nothing but induce confusion in my eyes, but I’m not the one to tell you what to do. > Features that would be nice, but not necessarily expected: > - enum to string and back for "bitwise flag" style enums (eg. CSV names). Not sure what you mean by that, because the regular string conversions work for those just as fine. Do you mean what I wrote above with the OR connected values in a string representation? > - some mapping to std::bitset or similar. That would be interesting! I’ve added it to the feature list, but it will probably take some time . > - can specify multiple string values that map to the same enum value. Hm. I’m not sure if I’d want that, or how that could even be implemented. If somebody wanted non-casesensitive behaviour, it would be better to use a std::string with custom char_traits, and that’s something I’ll definitely offer. > - can specify different conversion tables for the same enum type (for > use in different contexts, eg. serialisation vs. user output). I thought about that, too. I already give the option to choose between std::maps and a linear search for lookups, but I would really like to give the client more options. Those were good suggestions, thank you very much! You’ve given me quite some things to work on, but now I’ve got a pretty decent feature list. --- Felix Uhl Von: Gavin Lambert Gesendet: ‎Mittwoch‎, ‎29‎. ‎Oktober‎ ‎2014 ‎00‎:‎57 An: boost(a)lists.boost.org On 29/10/2014 00:09, Felix Uhl wrote: > So far, the only way to convert an enumeration value to a string is > a lot of boilerplate code consisting of switch case statements for > every single possible value of the enum. Not the only way. The method I use is to create a lookup table via a little macro magic. Granted that I'm then doing a linear scan through the table (whereas a switch statement could be more efficient, or knowledge that the enum is contiguous and could therefore do an index lookup), but having a table allows for other useful queries, and I wanted something that could be defined statically. As a side-benefit (that undoubtedly will horrify some people), the way the code was implemented also allows it to act as a string-to-member-pointer lookup table, which can be quite handy for typed property bags and the like with a string lookup key. > What features would you want from such a library? Features that I would expect of such a library: - support for arbitrary non-contiguous values. - enum value to string. - string to enum value. - list of all valid values, either as strings or values. - can indicate whether a given value (string or enum) is a member of the enumeration. - can round-trip (enum -> string -> enum) values that are not members of the enumeration; of course (string -> enum -> string) is not feasible for non-members. - can specify a custom string value that the enum value generates (not just the BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE). Features that would be nice, but not necessarily expected: - enum to string and back for "bitwise flag" style enums (eg. CSV names). - some mapping to std::bitset or similar. - can specify multiple string values that map to the same enum value. - can specify different conversion tables for the same enum type (for use in different contexts, eg. serialisation vs. user output). _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

3 2