- Boost - lists.boost.org

[1.50.0] Beta closing; planning to build Beta RC tomorrow
by Beman Dawes 30 May '12

30 May '12

Per the schedule, building a release candidate for the beta will begin tomorrow. There are still a few hours left for merging emergency bug fixes that are stable in trunk, with a release manager's permission. But that's being charitable. We need to let tests cycle overnight and move forward. This is a beta, after all, and not the final release. branches/release will reopen for bug fixes as soon as the beta ships. See the calendar at http://www.boost.org/community/index.html for the release schedule. --Beman

1 0

Status of Boost.Atomic?
by Sean Chittenden 30 May '12

30 May '12

Does anyone know what the status of Boost.Atomic is? I remember hearing that Boost.Atomic was to be committed by the end of March, but now that we're backed up against the release, it doesn't look like Boost.Atomic is going to make it in to 1.50.0. Is there any chance that someone can push Boost.Atomic along and commit it to trunk so that it can finally get some exposure and possibly make it in to a release? -sc PS CLang 3.1 was released recently with with support for atomics, but the current version of XCode ships a dated version of CLang 3.1 with atomics disabled. This compatibility shim is going to be very useful during the C++11 transition. >>>> Where can I find the latest version of boost.lockfree ? There's nothing >>>> in >>>> the sandbox or the vault (it seems). The latest commit on Tim's public >>>> git >>>> repo was done more than 6 month ago. >>>> >>>> Now that atomic has been accepted, are there any roadblocks to have >>>> boost.lockfree released ? >>> >>> boost.atomic has been accepted, but it hasn't been merged into trunk, yet >>> ... helge, do you have any timeline? >> >> I will package it up before the end of march, this should suffice? > > great! -- Sean Chittenden sean(a)chittenden.org

2 1

Release notes for 1.50
by Daniel James 30 May '12

30 May '12

Hello everyone, It's time to fill in the release notes, they're at: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/website/public_html/live/feed/history/boost… Note that from now on, that this is on the live site, not the beta site. If you don't know quickbook syntax, don't worry, I'll clean it up before regenerating the page. You can see the html output at: http://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_50_0.html It isn't automatically updated, so you'll only see your changes when I update it. But if that's too much for you, you can email me and I'll sort it out. It's probably better for you if do it yourself, as there's always the chance that an email will slip through the cracks, and it will be easier for you to fix typos and link errors later on. Also, please don't link to changesets in the history, if you don't have something to link to, just create a ticket, accept it and close it with a message like: "Fixed in trunk in [1234]. fixed in release in [5678]". It's also a good idea to add a more detailed change log to your library's documentation and link to that. There are a few outstanding things to do, which I should sort out before posting this, but this is at shorter notice than normal. I'll deal with them in the next day or two, so please have a little patience. thanks, Daniel

7 10

Status of GIT and BOOST
by Marshall Clow 29 May '12

29 May '12

[ reposted in its own thread so that it is less easily missed ] Synopsis: ========= The Boost Steering Committee has agreed IN PRINCIPLE to move ahead with the migration to Git and to a modular repository structure. What? ===== Development of Boost will move from a monolithic subversion repository to the much-discussed Git repository structure consisting of one super-module that points (via submodules) to other repositories, each containing an individual Boost library. The Git repositories will be hosted on github. Although Boost will move to a distributed development model, it will still be tested and released as a unified whole. There will be scripts to reassemble the monolithic Boost from its constituents. The development work flow need not change for contributors. They have the option to check out boost super-module and all the submodules, execute the script to make a monolithic whole, and develop and test as usual. It is currently an open question what to do about issue tracking once we move to modularized repos. Both Github and Redmine have been suggested as possible solutions that would give users a unified way to search for bugs across all of boost. The migration will NOT take place before this issue is settled. Why? ==== Boost is big and getting bigger. We've been experiencing scalability problems with our tools and with our release and testing procedures for a while now. The problem is bigger than "subversion commands are slow". Moving a large, diverse library collection forward in lock-step slows down progress. Our solutions to the scalability problems have themselves caused problems. We don't branch from trunk for our releases. Changes languish on trunk because people forget to merge them. Trunk is a wild west where test results for any one library are often broken due to requirements shifting from under it, causing confusion about whether a change can be safely merged to release. And the converse is also true: just because tests are green on trunk is no assurance that a change won't cause problems on release. The solution is to free each library to evolve independently within its own repository. Boost is a collection of the last stable releases of each of its constituent libraries. Library maintainers develop and test against this latest stable library collection and issue rolling releases on their own timetable. Release managers pick which versions of each library to include and have the option to temporarily fork a library to correct integration issues to get a release out, issuing pull requests to get the fixes upstream. The result is a more dynamic, loosly-coupled ecosystem where both the individual libraries and Boost as a whole can move forward more quickly. How? ==== The modular git repositories have already been created along with a script to populate them automatically. At some point, the old svn repo will be locked permanently and the modular git repos will be re-populated from svn. John Wiegley has worked on a script to do the conversion with perfect fidelity. A separate git repo with all of Boost's history will be created such that it can be grafted on to each submodule if desired. That way, each submodule can share history with all the others (a significant space win). The test and release scripts and the website will be updated to account for the new development model. From that point forward, all development will take place in the git repos. The old Trac will eventually be locked and archived. Whatever issue tracking solution we come up with, tickets must be migrated. The plan is still coming together here. Bear with us. When? ===== The approval is IN PRINCIPLE and not IN FACT at this point because the necessary pieces are not yet all in place. In particular, issues such as trac integration and testing are not yet settled. Also, we want a script in hand that verifies that no changesets are lost or munged in the svn->git migration. Once the steering committee is satisfied that all the pieces are in place, we'll give a final go-ahead, the dates will be announced, and the transition will take place. An ETA is hard to predict at this point, but we are aiming for making the switch in the next few months. Possibly after 1.50 or 1.51. Comments: ========= The Boost Steering Committee understands that there is general but not universal support in the Boost community for this migration. The committee came this to decision after long analysis of the ongoing problems facing Boost, and of the merits of the proposed migration. It is the role of the Steering Committee to make difficult decisions like this, even when the wider community is unable to reach universal consensus. We will do everything to make this transition as painless as possible, and to give those not comfortable with git the support they need. We all appreciate your understanding. THANKS: ======= Thanks are due to the many people who have worked over the past few years to make this transition happen, including: Dave Abrahams Daniel Pfeifer John Wiegley Beman Dawes Eric Niebler Troy Straszheim Thanks, guys! Here's to making Boost better, faster and stronger. --Your friendly neighborhood steering committee Beman Dawes Dave Abrahams Hartmut Kaiser Jeff Garland Jon Kalb Marshall Clow Robert Stewart Steven Wantanabe -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki

1 0

Revelations at C++Now!?
by Lars Viklund 29 May '12

29 May '12

Hi list. Rumor has it that C++Now! is now over, and people are slowly returning to reality. What I wonder is if anything relevant to our lives was discussed or revealed at the conference. I know how easy it is at a conference or workshop to completely forget about the people out there that are not present when things are discussed or presented. If I recall correctly, there were to be some modularisation/VCS presentation from the Steering Committee, and I'm sure that you lads all had some lovely brainstorms and fistfights over beer and pizza. Come on, spill the beans. What did you all decide that will have an influence on the lives of us mortals going forward? -- Lars Viklund | zao(a)acc.umu.se

8 10

[filesystem] Create poisoned directory?
by Beman Dawes 29 May '12

29 May '12

Ticket #6932 identifies error reporting bugs in the filesystem create_directories() function. To run test cases I'd like to create a directory is OK to delete, but is poisoned against as many other operations as possible. How can this be done via the POSIX API? How can this be done via the Win32 API? Thanks, --Beman

2 1

[Spirit] Possible regression (certainly a behavioural change) regarding sequential-or with optional rhs
by adam.butcher＠selexelsag.com 29 May '12

29 May '12

Hi Hartmut, Joel, It seems that the new optional-collapsing behaviour in Spirit 2.5.1 overly simplifies the attributes of certain productions, transforming a tristate 'optionality' (optional<optional<S>>) into a simple boolean (optional<S>). This effectively flattens the two 'omitted' states into one -- in some cases (the use case below for example) they need to be distinguished (unless there is a better way to specify the rule). Ref our previous discussion on this ( http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/12/159680.php) (in fact it is exactly this example that is causing us the problem with the latest version). Adam Butcher wrote on 2009-12-04 at 13:19:51: > [snip] > The [array subscript] grammar spec is > > (start || (':' >> -start)) > > and not > > (start || (':' >> start)) > > I would expect optional<S> for both only in the latter case. > In the former I am deliberately allowing the specifier to the right of > the colon to be omitted -- within the already optional right-hand-side > of the sequential-or. This allows for input such as > > (1) $x // $x (assume it references a sequence) > (2) $x[7] // element 7 of $x > (3) $x[7:] // a slice of $x beginning at element 7 > (4) $x[:7] // a slice of $x up to element 7 > (5) $x[2:7] // a slice of $x beginning at 2 ending at 7 > (6) $x[:] // equivalent to $x (unspecified bounds) > > In the action function, wrt to right-hand-side of the sequential-or, I > need to determine: > a) whether a range specifier has been provided at all > (given by (bool) at_c<1>(access_spec)) > b) whether the range specifier includes an explicit bound > (given by (bool) *at_c<1>(access_spec)) > > The left-hand-side of the sequential-or is either an (optional) > 'range_begin' index if a range specifier is given or a lone 'index' > specifier if no range specifier is given. > > If the two optionals on the right-hand-side were collapsed would I not > lose the ability to distinguish between (2) and (3)? The attached program demonstrates the issue. With boost 1.47 (2.5) it works fine, with 1.48 (2.5.1) it breaks. I've attached the source file but included the comment at the top in this mail for convenience. Kind regards, Adam // Change of behaviour in Spirit 2.5.1 regarding collapsing optionals // in sequential-or productions. // // Previous discussion from 2009 related to this: // http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/12/159680.php // // // Given the STDIN // // s[:] // // the program below is expected to produce the following output: // // Have range spec... // No begin specified, using container begin. // No end specified, using container end. // Got: 'Range[B:E)' // // However, with 2.5.1, it produces the following: // // Have range spec... // No begin specified, using container begin. // Have range end '' // Got: 'Range[B:)' // // 2.5.1 also fails with the simpler STDIN: // // s[7] // // the program is expected to output: // // Have plain index 7 // Got: 'Index[7]' // // but with 2.5.1 it outputs: // // Have range spec... // Have range begin '7' // No end specified, using container end. // Got: 'Range[7:E)' // // This can be remedied to an extent by switching the #if 1 below // to be #if 0 enabling the collapsed optional code; however this // makes the presence of range-end indistinguishable from the // presence of a range-spec. // ----------------------------------------------- This email and any attached files contains company confidential information which may be legally privileged. it is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and solely for the purposes set forth therein. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error please notify the sender by return, delete it from your system and destroy any local copies. It is strictly forbidden to use the information in this email including any attachment or part thereof including copying, disclosing, distributing, amending or using for any other purpose. In addition the sender excludes all liabilities (whether tortious or common law) for damage or breach arising or related to this email including but not limited to viruses and libel.

1 0

[bind][phoenix] unified placeholders, yea or nay?
by Eric Niebler 29 May '12

29 May '12

I'm considering taking on as a side project the unification of the bind and phoenix placeholders, a perennial source of confusion and annoyance. I hesitate before beginning because it necessarily introduces some complexity into boost.bind, a very small, simple, and light-weight library. In particular, the unification would: 1) Cause boost.bind to depend on boost.proto. (I would do what I could to keep that dependency as slight as possible.) 2) Could not be supported on all platforms; e.g. not on borland or (gcc < 4) where the placeholders are actually static inline functions(!). (Peter, is this an ODR thing?) 3) Would introduce Phoenix behaviors into Bind, insofar as _1 is a lambda such that _1(42) evaluates to 42. At this point, it's not obvious to me that the benefits outweigh the costs. Opinions? Peter, I'd especially like to hear your thoughts. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

9 13

Re: [boost] [Intrusive] Cleaning up trailing white space
by Brian Wood 29 May '12

29 May '12

Olaf van der Spek <ml(a)vdspek.org> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Brian Wood <woodbrian77(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> This is probably the easiest way to improve Boost. ?I hope authors will > Really? Why? It can be done with a simple sed script and applied either to individual libraries or all of Boost. It's a small detail, but I hope it gets some attention. I brought it to Ion's attention as I use the Intrusive library and take a number of steps to reduce the need for new hardware. I won't stop using the library if he doesn't do this, but the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Cheers, Brian Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net <http://webebenezer.net/>

10 16

[bind]bind question
by Max 28 May '12

28 May '12

Hi, I have the following code: bool do_something_conditional(int *handle, const boost::function<bool(int)> &pred); bool pred_a(int handle); bool pred_b(int handle, int n1, int n2); bool do_something(int *handle, int n1, int n2) { return do_something_conditional(handle, boost::bind(std::logical_and<bool>(), boost::not1(&pred_a), boost::bind(&pred_b, _1, n1, n2))); } But it does not compile. I have been not playing with bind stuff for some time. But I've reviewed the doc and some of my old 'bind' code, it seems correct to me. The error message, you know, is quite complicated for me to find a direct answer. Could anybody please help me? Thanks in advance. I'm using 1.39 with MS VS2008SP1 Best regards Max

4 6