Boost-announce

Download

boost-announce@lists.preview.boost.org

October 2023

1 participants
1 discussions

[Async] Peer review report and conditions
by Niall Douglas 11 Oct '23

11 Oct '23

Dear Boost, Proposed Boost.Async by Klemens Morgenstern was reviewed between 8th and 18th August, and again between 22nd September and 2nd October. Reviews or substantially detailed comments came from: - /u/trailing_zero_count on Reddit - Ruben Perez - Marcelo Zimbres Silva - Andrzej Krzemienski - Mohammad Nejati - Janko Dedic - Robert Leahy I would like to thank those above for taking the time to write their detailed comments or reviews, and if I forgot to list anyone, please do forgive me. I did read all reviews and comments as they came in, so even if your name is not listed above, I did take into account your feedback. I would also like to thank all those far too many to list here who gave initial impressions, relaying spelling mistakes in the docs, or otherwise gave feedback of various forms. Boost could not continue without you! The tl;dr; outcome is that proposed Boost.Async is ACCEPTED but with CONDITIONS. Next follows are the **binding** conditions without which the library is not accepted: 1. The library needs to be renamed to something the Boost community doesn’t object to Quite a bit of discussion and feedback surrounded the proposed name “Boost.Async”. Multiple people felt that the name claims too much seeing as it is a C++ 20 coroutines only library, and is from first appearances entirely tied into Boost.ASIO (technically, any ASIO i/o executor can wrap any third party executor, but I can see where people get the strong ASIO association). I agree with Klemens that putting “ASIO” in the new name would be out of character with the other Boost libraries also heavily orientated around Boost.ASIO which do not have ASIO in their name. I find the suggestions that C++ 20 coroutines needs to be somehow in the name convincing. Exactly what form it should take I’ll leave up to the author and community to negotiate, but “Boost.Async” is definitely not a name with good buy-in in the Boost community. It cannot be named “Boost.Async” if it is to enter Boost. 2. The `select()` operation either needs to have its semantics changed, or be renamed Quite a few reviewers found the current semantics unpleasantly surprising, in that a random ready awaitable is chosen and all the others cancelled. This is far away from what `select()` typically means in the C and C++ worlds, and multiple reviewers commented negatively about this. The docs are unclear if it is guaranteed that the first ready awaitable is always chosen, or whether it is _some_ ready awaitable. The difference is important in many kinds of async programming. As this is a single threaded implementation, it should be possible to offer strict guarantees here. The semantics are acceptable if the operation is not called “select”, so I would suggest the easiest course here is to rename that operation to something more acceptable to the Boost community. 3. Channels need to terminate the process if relocated during use, or be made immovable, rather than it being UB to relocate them Some reviewers found the hard UB of moving a channel in use a poor design decision. Hard UB is good if it confers distinct benefits, however reviewers couldn’t see one here, and neither can I. As this library requires C++ 20 in any case, the obvious thing to do is make them immovable, but if that is felt too cumbersome, then they ought to noisily terminate the process or something not footgunny if relocated during use. Other non-binding feedback, which is not a hard condition of acceptance: - Multiple people found the naming of `promise` confusing. A promise is something in C++ land associated with a future, and I suppose in a few years it will also be associated with C++ coroutine awaitables. But here we have an awaitable named `promise`? Yes I know it makes sense in other programming languages, but here in C++ land it just seems weird and confusing for no obvious gain. I personally would suggest `eager_task` and `lazy_task` but I have no especially strong opinions on naming here other than that `promise` is a poor choice for any awaitable type. In fact, I think just don’t put the word “promise” into any awaitable type period. - I am sympathetic to multiple people raising the lack of preconditions and postconditions on operations described in the documentation. I also accept that in an async world, it’s hard to be precise. However, I think it would be a large benefit to the documentation to describe for each operation a list of the ways in which it can fail, and I think this should be added. - Andrzej took issue with the design of the generators, and I can see why. However, out in real world code land, C++ coroutine generators have surprisingly large amount of design variation. I’ve seen ones which you loop on testing them for boolean true, I’ve seen others which loop on their iterators, I’ve even seen ones which don’t implement either boolean true nor iterators and require you to call a `value()` member function which returns an Optional. Why? No idea, people seem to innovate uselessly here for some reason. I think it wise to adhere to `std::generator` from the standard, and do exactly what it does. From my reading of Async’s `generator`, whilst it has extensions e.g. the invocable call operator, the only thing missing is the iterator interface to make it implement `std::generator` and I don’t see any obvious reason why an iterator interface can’t be added here? - I agree with Andrzej about ever throwing `std::logic_error`, it should not be done in newly written code. It is recognised as a mistake by most on the standards committee nowadays. - The Mersenne Twister is a poor PRNG by modern standards. You should use JSF or anything else both much faster and higher quality. - More than one reviewer wants the docs to do a much better job on documenting pseudo-awaitables and awaitables and `await_transform`. - Quite a few times the docs talks about “async” when it really means “C++ coroutines”. - I think the docs does a poor job of disambiguating when what it is describing is part of the C++ standard, or it is part of Boost.Async. The reason this is important is that users need to know when/if they are locking themselves into Boost.Async proprietary extensions vs standard C++ coroutines. Finally, as a personal note on the review, it was notable how much negativity there currently is against C++ coroutines in general from the C++ community. A small number of us have been writing C++ coroutine code for many years now, we have been through the process of getting footgunned over lifetime issues, got frustrated that these coroutines are not the coroutines we were looking for, and eventually came round to understanding what C++ coroutines are good at solving, and more importantly what they are NOT good at solving. Once your head is wrapped around that, then comes the problem of having to reinvent a C++ coroutine support library because all the current open source ones have severe issues, especially around very tight coupling being imposed on your codebase. I don’t personally agree with every design decision in proposed Boost.Async, but I do think this will be a major step forward in making C++ coroutines accessible to many more developers than now, especially because this is to my knowledge the first standards-based loosely coupled C++ coroutines library which is open source. Undoubtedly after it ships with Boost, deficiencies will be found both in this library and in the currently quite poor quality implementation of C++ coroutines in the three major compilers. I very much hope that the increased number of developers using C++ coroutines as a result of this new Boost library will result in large and substantial improvements in implementation and library support of C++ coroutines. My thanks to Klemens for putting the work into what is a controversial and opinionated library design quite unlike any other currently available. It’s not easy to tread new ground without much precedent. My thanks to the Boost and Reddit communities for their ample and detailed review feedback, which made me managing this review possible.

1 0