- Boost-announce - lists.preview.boost.org

[boost] [review] Boost.Context mini-review starts today, January 2nd
by Giovanni Piero Deretta 02 Jan '12

02 Jan '12

Hi all, we will start a new year of Boost reviews with a one week mini-review of the Boost.Context library of Oliver Kowalke. The review period starts today January 2nd and ends January 11. Please use [context review] as prefix of your post. Reviewers are strongly encouraged to send their reviews to the boost development mailing list as this is the I follow more assiduously. Please note that Boost.Context was already reviewed and conditionally accepted last May, so we are not voting for acceptance. Instead, this mini-review is to discuss whether the library meets the conditions on acceptance that were listed by Vicente Botet, the review manager at that time. You'll find the whole list at the end of this email. Since the end of the original review, Oliver has spent a large amount of time on a partial rewrite of the library and both me and Oliver decided to schedule this review only after we determined that all issues had been addressed or at least considered. In your review please state whether the acceptance conditions have been addressed satisfactorily. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About the library: Boost.Context is a foundational library that provides a sort of cooperative multitasking on a single thread. By providing an abstraction of the current execution state in the current thread, including the stack (with local variables) and stack pointer, all registers and CPU flags, and the instruction pointer, a context instance represents a specific point in the application's execution path. This is useful for building higher-level abstractions, like coroutines and fibers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Useful Links: documentation: http://ok73.ok.funpic.de/boost/libs/context/doc/html/ library: git://github.com/olk/boost.context.git ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From the original review result email: Point to be addressed before the mini review: Design 1. Separation of the context class in two interface: - A C-like interface that defines a POD struct that is memcpy-able and that can be implemented either using platform libraries, as ucontext, fibers or directly using assembler when a robust implementation is available. The context swap implementation don't need to save the signals as ucontext does. The following is just for illustrations purposes. struct boost_context; typedef void boost_context_fn_t(intptr_t); extern "C" void boost_context_make(boost_context* ctx, boost_context_fn_t * f, intptr_t p, ...); extern "C" void boost_context_swap(boost_context* from, boost_context const* to); extern "C" intptr_t boost_context_destroy( boost_context* fc); boost_context_make is a merge of get_context with make_context + some fields assignations. "A user will have lower expectations from such a low level API and at the same time will give more freedom for other people to implement on top of it higher abstractions as Boost.Corutines, Boost.Fibers ..." - A non-copiable but movable safe context class on top of the low level C-like interface, that will provide modern and efficient C++ interface, that is usable by a user in a safe way. The safe context class would just be one of the client of the C-like interface, other library authors could either use the underlying C-like API directly or the class context depending on wether they need the speed or safety. * The context class will not be templated any more, and the use of type erasure will ensure that. * The constructor will accept any C++ callable, function pointers, functors, ... * At this high level interface, the function provided by the user could throw exceptions, and the library must wrap the user function and needs to store the exception raised and provide an interface to retrieve them. 2. The stack implementation must ensure that the stack is unwound before it is destroyed. A stack should only be safely deallocated if either has been completely unwound or if it doesn't own any resources. A basic stack without protection seems mandatory. For debug purposes it has been required to provide some stack usage functions that allow to know the max size used for example. Implementation 3. The assembler implementation on Windows must be disallowed if the ABI bug reported by Holger is confirmed. As far as Windows provides a fiber implementation that is as efficient as the assembler one, the assembler implementation is not mandatory and the user of the provided Windows fiber is a preferable choice. 4. Most of the 'throw' statements in the context class should actually be asserts. 5. The provided stack should be used to store any context parameters as far as no major impediment is found during the implementation. This will avoid further allocations on the safe context class. Documentation 6. The documentation is very minimalist and should be expanded with a discussion on context switching and use cases. Take care of all the grammar/spelling improvements suggested by the reviewers (It will be great if Jeffrey could review the documentation before the mini-review). Some user land examples should be provided (why not the yield example). 7. The concept of (Movable) Stack must be clearly defined, as it is done in the standard, using expression requirements with semantic constraints. 8. The assembler implementation should be carefully documented, so others could maintain the code and add other implementations if needed. 9. Some performance measure should be added. Providing the number of cycles on each implemented platform would be nice. Build system 10. The default build on a platform must work (It must be ABI compatible with the underlying platform) and take care of the specific features. Of course, the build needs to support cross compiling, so the user should be able to override the default values. Others points that are not required but that can make the library more usable or efficient: 1. The assembler implementations could be simplified if the context itself was represented as a single pointer to the top of the stack. This would save some instructions to move the source address from the stack return address to the context struct and back. 2. Instead of supporting a 'fc_link' a-la ucontext, have the callback function return a new context (it is void now). 'fc_link' is useful only on some limited cases (usually when you have an external scheduler managing your contexts), while the having the callback return the 'next continuation' has more applications (note that fc_link can be implemented easily in term of the continuation returning variant, but the reverse is harder). This will be very useful, for example, to implement some kind of 'exit_to' functionality (unwind the stack and restore another context), a key piece for safe context destruction. 3. Give to boost_context_swap the ability to exchange a parameter with the other context: boost_context_parm_t boost_context_swap( boost_context * ofc, boost_context const* nfc, boost_context_parm_t parm) where boost_context_parm_t is either union boost_context_parm_t { void * ptr; int int_; }; or simply intptr_t; boost_context_swap saves the current context in ocf and restores the context ncf as usual; additionally, if ofc was 'captured' on a call to boost_context_swap, this call will return the value of parm on the original context. This extra parameter is equivalent to the second parameter of longjmp. If ofc was created with boost_context_swap, 'parm' will be an extra parameter to the function. Note that this can be potentially implemented with little or no overhead. 4. Add a variant of boost_context_swap that allows executing a function on the destination context (in this case 'parm' would be passed parameter to this function. This is mostly useful for injecting an exception on the destination context. This can be potentially implemented on top of the existing functionality, but would slow down every context switch; a possible efficient implementation would manipulate the destination stack to add a call to the function on top of it, so that the cost is paid only when required. 5. Add a current context function (thread local). _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

[Review Results:Algorithms] Boost.Algorithms is accepted
by Dave Abrahams 20 Dec '11

20 Dec '11

Having “reviewed the reviews” of Boost.Algorithms, I'm pleased to announce that it is unconditionally accepted. Congratulations to Marshall Clow! There were 5 yes votes and 1 no vote. The issues raised in all reviews were taken seriously by Marshall and recorded in the issue tracker at https://github.com/mclow/Boost.Algorithm I trust that Marshall will address the most important ones immediately, so I feel no need to place conditions on acceptance. Among the most important issues: https://github.com/mclow/Boost.Algorithm/issues/19 https://github.com/mclow/Boost.Algorithm/issues/18 https://github.com/mclow/Boost.Algorithm/issues/16 https://github.com/mclow/Boost.Algorithm/issues/15 https://github.com/mclow/Boost.Algorithm/issues/2 Thanks, everybody, for your participation! -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

1 0

[boost] [review] [Local] Review Result - ACCEPTED
by Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. 12 Dec '11

12 Dec '11

Local is ACCEPTED into Boost. After following the lively Local review discussion several weeks ago, and reviewing the discussion a second (and sometimes third) time, I have come to the above conclusion. There was quite a bit of passion on both the sides of "aisle", and thus, obviously, no decision I make would be well-received by all. Let me start by summarizing the main arguments against including Local in Boost: (a) Local functions are not very useful, at least in the presence of existing alternatives (e.g., namespace functions and Boost.Phoenix). (b) Local is really a portability library for C++03 presenting an imperfect emulation of features readily available in C++11. (c) Local's interface is primarily macro-based, making code ugly and difficult to read. In my opinion as the review manager, a sufficient number of individuals in the discussion found the library "useful" to address (a) (sometimes with additional positive adverbs); indeed, at least a couple individuals have shared positive experiences with real-world use. Namespace functions require one to move code to somewhere other than where one may prefer to have it, and often requires a significant amount of boilerplate when binding local variables. Aside from any perceived issues with Boost.Phoenix's syntax and compiler error messages, it has been noted that binding member functions within Boost.Phoenix can get ugly. As far as (b) is concerned, the community seems pretty far from reaching a consensus on whether a library described by (b) belongs in Boost. There are certainly libraries currently in Boost that could be pegged to satisfy (b) as well, though they all have other mitigating features they make their situation different from Local in some way. As far as (c) is concerned, several have acknowledged that a macro-based interface is necessary to implement local functions in C++03, and it seems to have been generally agreed that, given this limitation, Lorenzo has done an admireable job making the interface as easy-to-use as possible. Some find it ugly, others find it reasonable. In addition to the counterarguments of (a-c) above, the following facts weighed into my final decision: * Lorenzo has been engaging and in constant communication with the developer's list during the development of Local. This gives me confidence that he will continue to actively maintain (and improve?) Local. * The documentation is unanimously agreed to be of Boost quality. * The transition of some organizations from C++03 to C++11 may take several more years, and Boost has a history of supporting "ancient" compilers (for better or worse). The point being, a library that eases the transition from C++03 to C++11 has some merit based on current precedent. * There had been previous work on local functions by Alexander Nasanov and Steven Watanabe shared on the developer's list, suggesting a desire for this functionality for some time. * Local is approximately an extension of Boost.ScopeExit; indeed, it basically fulfills the request to Alexander Nasanov from the review result [2] of Boost.ScopeExit to create such an extension. Lastly, my own opinion of "what Boost is" factored in here. I view Boost as *partly* a collection of general purpose libraries that can be used in wide variety of applications (and thus Boost frequently acts as a staging ground for standard adoption). Based on review feedback, I believe Local satisfies this criterion; and based on the mailing list discussion, I believe this view of Boost is not entirely inconsistent with others on the mailing list. Ultimately, it wasn't so much a # of "yes" votes versus # of "no" votes as it was the above general considerations. Regardless, I think independent of how the votes were counted, the "yes" votes outnumbered the "no" votes. This required some discretion on my part as not everyone who expressed an opinion submitted a formal review, and some participants were only arguing in favor of some specific point supporting either acceptance or rejection of Local. "Yes" reviews (7) -------- Krzysztof Czainski Andrzej Krzemienski Pierre Morcello Nat Lindon John Bytheway Edward Diener Gregory Crosswhite "No" reviews (3) -------- Vicente J. Botet Thomas Heller Hartmut Kaiser Paul A. Bristow and Alexander Nasanov (the author of Boost.ScopeExit) both submitted reviews but did not express an opinion (as far as I could tell) on whether Local should be included in Boost, though if I had to peg Paul's, it would be to reject Local. From what I gathered, Joel de Guzman, Joel Falcou, Dean Michael Berris, and Lucanus J. Simonson were opposed to including Local in Boost (the aforementioned did not submit a formal review, though a formal review might be unnecessary if your vote is "no"). On the other hand, Brian Wood, Philippe Vaucher, Mathias Gaunard, Robert Ramey, Nathan Ridge, Brent Spillner, Thomas Klimpel, Christopher Jefferson, Daniel James, Rafael Fourquet, Matthias Schabel, and Robert Stewart participated in the discussion and argued in favor of some point that supported accepting Local in Boost. I want to be clear here that certainly not everyone in the aforementioned list even implied that they supported acceptance of Local (I would guess that only roughly half implied as much), but they indirectly helped its case by addressing arguments against inclusion. Overall, that indicates to me that more individuals support acceptance of Local into Boost than rejection. [Apologies for any name misspellings and absent accents.] Regarding Boost.ScopeExit: 4 reviews were in favor of deprecating Boost.ScopeExit; 3 reviews felt there was nothing wrong with both Boost.ScopeExit and Local coexisting; and 3 reviews mentioned the possibility of improving Boost.ScopeExit with the features provided by Local's exits. As such I'm inclined to let Alexander (who opposed any kind of merging of Local and Boost.ScopeExit) work with Lorenzo on improving Boost.ScopeExit as he sees fit, and hopefully both libraries can address this apparent duplication of functionality within their respective documentation to avoid user confusion. Regarding local::function::overload: Based on the review comments, it makes the most sense to add this to Boost.Functional. Regarding BOOST_IDENTITY_TYPE: This should be added to Boost.Utility. On the other hand, there doesn't appear to be a compelling use case for BOOST_IDENTITY_VALUE. The following are some suggested *possible* improvements that reviewers brought up. This list is by no means exhaustive. Further, I personally don't think all of these suggestions are necessarily "good", but I think it's fair for Lorenzo (and the community) to consider them nonetheless. Parenthetic comments are my own opinions. * Some aren't convinced of the utility of LOCAL_BLOCK. (It's use cases appear fairly narrow so it might be best to simplify the library and remove this capability.) * Use "this_" (as opposed to "_this") as an alias for "this" within function bodies, and possibly also within bind declarations. * Present Boost.PP sequence interface as a workaround for the variadic interface? (I don't have a problem with supporting both interfaces at the top level.) * "Local" and "Locale" look too much alike, suggesting a name change to "Scope", "Scoped", "LocalFunction", "Closure" may be a good idea? * Allow use without dependence on Boost.TypeOf. * Rename prefix and postfix macros from XXX_PARAMS/XXX_NAME to XXX/XXX_END? (I don't mind the current macros.) * Explicitly separate bound variables from function parameters. (I think this suggestion has merit but I don't know what the interface could look like.) * Remove support for default parameters to simplify interface and documentation? (It doesn't seem like default function parameters would be very useful.) * Use "capture" instead of "bind" for the bind/capture keyword? (I like and prefer "bind".) Finally, here the links to the submitted formal reviews, for reference. Of particular note are Krzysztof's and John's reviews for their comments on the documentation. Some "yes" votes were conditional, but AFAIK Lorenzo has already agreed to address the relevant conditions. Krzysztof Czainski http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/225543 Vicente J. Botet http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/225604 Andrzej Krzemienski http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/225656 Paul A. Bristow [...cannot find link to review...] Pierre Morcello http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/225694 Nat Lindon http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/71508 Thomas Heller http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/225736 Hartmut Kaiser http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/225745 John Bytheway http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/225746 Alexander Nasanov http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/225783 Edward Diener http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/225795 Gregory Crosswhite http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/225807 Finally, really big thanks to everyone for participating in the review and ancillary discussions. I attempted to be as transparent as possible in outlining the rationale for my decision above, but if you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask. - Jeff, Review Manager for Local [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/168612 [2] http://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2008/05/0190.php

1 0

Boost 1.48.0 Release Notice
by Beman Dawes 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

Release 1.48.0 of the Boost C++ Libraries is now available. These open-source libraries work well with the C++ Standard Library, and are usable across a broad spectrum of applications. The Boost license encourages both commercial and non-commercial use. This release contains new libraries: Container, Locale, Move. Updated libraries include: Asio, Chrono, Config, Fusion, Geometry, Graph, Interprocess, Intrusive, Lexical cast, Math, MSM, Numeric Conversion, Proto, Regex, Spirit, TypeTraits, Unordered, Wave, and more. For details, including download links, see http://www.boost.org/users/news/version_1_48_0 You can also download directly from SourceForge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/1.48.0/ To install this release on your system, see http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/more/getting_started/index.html Thanks, --The Boost release team Beman Dawes Daniel James Eric Niebler Rene Rivera Vladimir Prus

1 0

[boost] Boost.Local Review (Nov 10, 2011 to Nov 19, 2011)
by Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. 10 Nov '11

10 Nov '11

Hi all, It is time! The review of Lorenzo Caminiti's proposed Boost.Local library begins tomorrow, ***November 10, 2011***, and ends on ***November 19, 2011***. Boost.Local implements local functions, local blocks, and local exits for the C++ programming language. It allows one to define a function at any declarative scope, including function scope; bind variables from the enclosing scope; and pass this function to templated STL-style algorithms. Please see the Introduction of the documentation for a longer but still brief overview. -------- The code and documentation are available from the Boost sandbox ( https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/) https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/local/ [everything] https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/local/boost/ [code] https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/local/libs/local/doc/html/index.htm… -------- Please state clearly whether you think this library should be accepted as a Boost library. Other questions you may want to consider: - 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? Please also consider the following issues and proposals specific to Boost.Local. Your opinion is welcome on any or all of these. - Boost.Local's local exits provide the same functionality (and then some) as Boost.ScopeExit. Does this duplication of functionality need to be dealt with, and if so, how? - Lorenzo is proposing to add boost::local::function:: overload to Boost.Function as boost::function::overload. See https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/local/libs/local/doc/html/boost/loc… - Lorenzo is proposing to add BOOST_IDENTITY_TYPE to boost/utility. See https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/local/libs/local/doc/html/BOOST_IDE… - Likewise, Lorenzo is proposing to add BOOST_IDENTITY_VALUE to boost/utility. See https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/local/libs/local/doc/html/BOOST_IDE… -------- Lastly, please note that Boost.Local has included a copy of the Variadic Macro Data (VMD) library in boost/detail/preprocessor/variadic_macro_data. Since then, VMD has been modified and integrated into Boost.Preprocessor. After the review has concluded, Lorenzo will remove this local copy of the VMD library and replace its usage within Boost.Local with the Boost.Preprocessor variadic extensions. -------- Thanks in advance to all who participate in the review discussion; I'm looking forward to it! - Jeffrey Hellrung (Review Manager) - Gregory Crosswhite (Review Assistant)

1 0

[boost] [atomic] review results
by Tim Blechmann 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

hi all, unfortunately only few reviews of boost.atomic arrived in time, however i count 3 YES and no NO, so i am happy to say: Helge Bahmann's boost.atomic library is ACCEPTED. since the library is an implementation of a c++11 feature for c++03, design, API and semantics are mostly fixed. many comments are going into details of the implementation, so i won't sum them all up ... iac, helge already said he wants to address the raised issues, the main points are summarized below. full implementation of the c++11 interface: the library currently only implements a subset of the c++11 library. it lacks the functional interface for integral atomic types and the ATOMIC_VAR_INIT / ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT macro. quickly consulting the latest draft that i currently have at hand the following two functions are missing as well: template <class T> T kill_dependency(T y); void atomic_signal_fence(memory_order); i encourage helge to provide a full implementation of the interface. documentation: the documentation is currently lacking a good API reference. i would therefore encourage helge to provide a doxygen-generated reference section. there were some concerns that it assumes that readers will have to be familiar with concurrency. maybe it is a good idea to point to some literature/tutorials about concurrent programming and/or to c++11 atomics. the section of real-world examples could probably include a link to shavit/herlihy's book `the art of multiprocessor programming'. it would also be helpful to have a detailed specification, if a platform/compiler combination supports a specific type natively (with run-time dispatching or specific compiler flags) ... maybe in form of a table. shared memory support/multi-module support: in multi-module applications and when using shared memory, the blocking emulation of atomics can cause troubles. for multi-module applications this can be resolved by placing the spinlock pool inside a shared library. shared- memory support could be realized by associating a (spin)lock with each blocking atomic<> instead of using a pool of spinlocks. boost should definitely provide atomics which support shared memory, either by default or by an additional implementation which is placed in the boost::interprocess namespace. i would like to thank helge for implementing boost.atomic and submitting it to boost and everyone who participated in the review. cheers, tim review manager _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

[boost] [Boost.Endian] Review Results
by joel falcou 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

Hi everyone, after some delay, here is the result of the review of Beman Dawes' Boost.Endian library. First, I want to thanks all participants of the review that lead to very deep and interesting discussions on the matter. 5 votes were cast : 2 unconditionally in favor, 3 conditionally in favor after changes made and there is a mini-review. The verdict is that Boost.Endian is **CONDITIONNALY ACCEPTED** Here is what needs to be done to get the library ready for a mini-review: * Common use case scenarios should be developed. * Example programs should be developed for the common use case scenarios. * Documentation should illuminate the differences between endian integer/float type and endian conversion approaches to the common use case scenarios, and provide guidelines for choosing the most appropriate approach in user's applications. * Conversion functions supplying results via return should be provided. * Platform specific performance enhancements such as use of compiler intrinsics or relaxed alignment requirements should be supported. * Endian integer (and floating) types should be implemented via the conversion functions. If that can't be done efficiently, consideration should be given to expanding the conversion function signatures to resolve the inefficiencies. * Benchmarks that measure performance should be provided. It should be possible to compare platform specific performance enhancements against portable base implementations, and to compare endian integer approaches against endian conversion approaches for the common use case scenarios. * Float (32-bits) and double (64-bits) should be supported. IEEE 754 is the primary use case. * Support for user defined types (UDTs) is desirable, and should be provided where there would be no conflict with the other concerns. * There is some concern that endian integer/float arithmetic operations might used inadvertently or inappropriately. The impact of adding an endian_buffer class without arithmetic operations should be investigated. * Stream insertion and extraction of the endian integer/float types should be documented and included in the test coverage. * Binary I/O support that was investigated during development of the Endian library should be put up for mini-review for inclusion in the Boost I/O library. From this point, I will let Beman prepare Endian for the mini-review and I already volunteer to manage the mini-review so informations are not scattered around. Regards _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

[C++ Now! 2012] Call for Submissions
by Hartmut Kaiser 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

INAUGURAL C++ NOW! CONFERENCE 2012 Aspen CO, USA, May 14-18, 2012, www.cppnow.org CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS We invite you to submit session proposals to the Inaugural C++ Now! Conference: C++Now! 2012 (Aspen CO, USA, May 14 - 18, 2012). Based on the successful traditions of 5 years of BoostCon, which was the main face-to-face event for all things C++ and Boost (www.boost.org) C++Now! 2012 will present leading speakers from the whole C++ community. The conference name is changing to C++ Now! to reflect the current value of the language, the focus on its new state (from the new Standard), and the need to continually look to the future so the language remains useful to the C++ community. The focus of this conference will be the new C++11 language Standard and as usual Boost: what's new in C++, its Standard library, and in the Boost libraries, how to write and maintain them, how to evangelize or to deploy Boost within your organization. The new C++ Standard, but also the infrastructure and process of Boost, its vision and mission - no matter what you are interested in, it all comes together in the C++Now! sessions. Meet the colleagues, and feel the inspiration to support your work with C++ and Boost for the next year. The C++ Now! Conference is dedicated to discussion and education about C++, an open and free language and standard. Our Conference will focus on discussion and education about open source software usage and developments in the C++ developer and user community. To reflect the breadth of the C++ and Boost communities, the conference includes sessions aimed at three constituencies: C++ and Boost end-users, hard-core Boost library and tool developers, and researchers pushing the boundaries of computation. The program fosters interaction and engagement within and across those groups, with an emphasis on hands-on, participatory sessions. As a multi-paradigm language, C++ is a melting pot where the most compelling ideas from other programming communities are blended in powerful ways. Historically, some of the most popular sessions at C++Now! have highlighted these concepts, from DSLs to functional programming to transactional memory and more. Bring your C#, Python, Ruby or Haskell influences to bear in an environment that will broaden their exposure. IMPORTANT DATES New proposal submissions due: January 10th, 2012. Proposals decisions sent (tentative program available): February 17th, 2012. Fully scheduled program available: February 25th, 2012. Session materials due: April 15th, 2012. BEST PRESENTATION AWARDS We know how much effort it takes to prepare talks for our conference. For this reason we will award the best presentations in the following categories: Best Presentation, Best Short Presentation, Best Tutorial, and Best Workshop. The awards will be given based on the audience's voting. Each award will include the author's name listed on the cover of the C++Now! website for that year and a plaque containing all the C++Now! conference information. SESSION TOPICS Topics of interest include, but are not restricted to, the following: * C++11 and how it changes life for users and library writers * General tutorial sessions on C++11, the C++11 Standardslibrary, and one or more Boost libraries * In-depth sessions on using specific Boost libraries * Case studies on using Boost * Experts panels * Advanced sessions on implementation techniques used within Boost libraries * Development workshops to extend or enhance existing Boost libraries * Workshops on design process * Infrastructure workshops such as Build tools, Website, Testing * Concepts and Generic Programming * Hardware and infrastructure presentations focused on how libraries can make better use of the technology * Software development tools and their application to C++ and or Boost * Other topics likely to be of great interest to Boost users and developers Interactive and collaborative sessions are encouraged, as this is the style of learning and participation that has proven most successful at such events. Sessions can be tutorial based, with an emphasis on interaction and participant involvement, or workshop based, whether hands-on programming or paper-based, discussion-driven collaborative work. SESSION FORMATS Presentations Presentations focus on a practitioner's ideas and experience with anything relevant to C++11, Boost and users. Panels Panels feature three or four people presenting their ideas and experiences relating to C++11 and Boost's relevant, controversial, emerging, or unresolved issues. Panels may be conducted in several ways, such as comparative, analytic, or historic. Tutorials Tutorials are sessions at which instructors teach conference participants specific skills relevant to C++11 and Boost. Workshops Workshops provide an active arena for advancements in Boost-relevant topics. Workshops provide the opportunity for experienced practitioners to develop new ideas about a topic of common interest and experience. Author's Corner These were introduced at BoostCon 2008, and were a great Presentations success They are short (30 minute) sessions, focusing on tips on usage and design. In addition, we're looking to uncover the hidden design gems in Boost libraries. Tool Vendors We actively encourage tool vendors and ISP's to submit Presentations proposals for a special Tool Vendors Session Track aimed at products related to Boost and C++ (compilers, libraries, tools, etc.). Other formats may also be of interest. Don't hold back a proposal just because it doesn't fit into a pigeonhole. SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL Standard Sessions are 60 minutes. You may submit a proposal for fractions or multiples of 90-minutes. Fractional proposals will be grouped into 60 minute sessions covering related topics. Longer sessions, such as tutorials and classes, will be assigned 90 minute, three hour (i.e. half day), or six hour (i.e. full day) time slots. Please include: * The working title. * Type of session: presentation, panel, tutorial, workshop, authors corner, vendor track, other. * A paragraph or two describing the topic covered, suitable for the conference web site. * Proposed length: 10-20 minute short talks, 45 minutes, 90 minutes, half day, full day. * Alternate lengths, if you are willing to make adjustments: 10- 20 minute short-talks, 45 minutes, 90 minutes, half-day, full day. * Audience: users, developers, both. * Level: basic, intermediate, advanced. * A biography, suitable for the conference web site. * Your contact information (will not be made public). SUBMISSION DETAILS All submissions should be made through the EasyChair conference management system: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=cppnow2012. If you have not already registered at EasyChair, you will need to do so in order to submit your proposal. All submissions will go through a peer review process. Authors are invited (but are not required) to submit PDF versions of full papers of up to 10 pages in ACM conference proceedings format (see http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates) The full papers are not required unless you want them published in the proceedings. All accepted proposals will be made available in the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library (approval pending). Best papers, after further reviews, will be considered to be book chapters or journal articles in a renowned journal. The session materials go on the C++Now! website and will be available to attendees. For general information on the C++Now! 2012 paper submission or the scope of technical papers solicited, please refer to the conference website at www.cppnow.org. For any other questions about the submission process or paper format, please contact the Program Committee at cppnow2012(a)easychair.com. If you have any technical problems with EasyChair, please contact EasyChair for help. Note: Presenters must agree to grant a non-exclusive perpetual license to publish submitted materials, either electronically or in print, in any media related to C++ Now!. Hartmut Kaiser, email: hartmut.kaiser(a)gmail.com (Program Committee Chair) Dave Abrahams, email: dave(a)boostpro.com (Conference Chair) On behalf of the conference organizers

1 0

[boost] [Review] Boost.Atomic review starts today, October 17th 2011
by Tim Blechmann 16 Oct '11

16 Oct '11

Hi all, The review of Helge Bahmann's Boost.Atomic library starts today, October 17th 2011. It will end on October 26th. I encourage everyone to participate the the discussion on the Boost mailing list about this very important library. In addition the code can be reviewed line-by-line in code collaborator (http://demo.smartbear.com/boost/) About Boost.Atomic: Boost.Atomic is a library that provides atomic data types and operations on these data types, as well as memory ordering constraints required for coordinating multiple threads through atomic variables. It implements the interface as defined by the C++11 standard, but makes this feature available for platforms lacking system/compiler support for this particular C++11 feature. Tarball: http://www.chaoticmind.net/~hcb/projects/boost.atomic/boost.atomic.tar.gz Documentation: http://www.chaoticmind.net/~hcb/projects/boost.atomic/doc/index.html Please always state in your review, whether you think the library should be accepted as a boost library! Additionally please consider giving feedback on the following general topics: - 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? On which platform? 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? Cheers, Tim Review Manager _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

Boost.Algorithms Review Begins today
by Dave Abrahams 23 Sep '11

23 Sep '11

The review period for the proposed Boost.Algorithms library, by Marshall Clow, begins today (September 22) and runs through Oct 1. I'm pleased to act as review manager. ,----[ Important Notes ] | - Please do not post your review or discussion as a reply to this | message. | - Please begin your review's subject line with "[Review:Algorithms]" | - Please feel free to note any individual issues in the GitHub issue | tracker and make reference to them from your review. | - Please see below for *further* important notes `---- You can find the library at https://github.com/mclow/Boost.Algorithm. If you don't want to use Git, you can get a .zip or tarball snapshot at https://github.com/mclow/Boost.Algorithm/archives/master Description =========== The Boost Algorithms library is a work in progress; it is not meant to be a complete set of general purpose algorithms for C++ programming; but rather a small collection of useful algorithms, and a structure for adding more over time. The algorithms here fall into three basic categories: 1. Searching - Boyer-Moore Search - Boyer-Moore-Horspool Search - Knuth-Morris-Pratt search 2. Sequence properties - Tests to see if a sequence is ordered - Tests for the elements of a sequence 3. Miscellaneous - Constrain a value between two 'boundaries' (minmax) Potential Interactions with Existing Boost Libraries ==================================================== This submission potentially interacts with all of the following existing Boost libraries: * foreach - http://boost.org/libs/foreach * minmax - http://boost.org/libs/algorithm/minmax * range - http://boost.org/libs/range * string_algo - http://boost.org/libs/algorithm/string_algo Reviewers should consider these potential interactions. What to include in Review Comments ================================== - Keep your criticism constructive. Constructive criticism usually comes with specific suggestions for improvement. - If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. - Please *do* vote on whether the library should be accepted. Everyone who takes the time to look at the library is qualified to vote, and every vote is valuable. - Other 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? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

1 0