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

the Switch library by Steven Watanabe has been accepted provisionally
by Stjepan Rajko 17 Jan '08

17 Jan '08

The Switch library, submitted by Steven Watanabe, has been accepted provisionally pending a mini-review to be scheduled when possible. The purpose of the mini-review will be to assure that the suggestions outlined below have been adequately addressed. I would like to again thank Steven for submitting a very useful library, and for diligently working with the reviewers on improving its design. I would also like to thank Tobias Schwinger, Joel de Guzman, Darren Cook, Daniel (dherring@...), Felipe Magno de Almeida, and Paul Bristow for providing reviews, votes and half votes. Finally, thanks also to Dan Marsden, Larry Evans, Alexander Nasonov, Richard (legalize@...) and Mathias Gaunard for contributing to the discussion. SUMMARY OF VOTES: Tobias Schwinger and Joel de Guzman have submitted full reviews with positive votes: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/32637 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/32634 (Joel eventually converted his vote to "yes") One "yes" (half) vote was submitted by Paul Bristow: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/170069 One "no" (half) vote was submitted by Felipe Magno de Almeida: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/170051 Another "no" came privately - the point there was that the library didn't undergo enough scrutiny before submission, and that it should be resubmitted. Another privately submitted "no" came soon after the review opened, stating that the reviewer was not able to deduce any usability/usefulness from the library documentation, and suggested there should be a motivating example on the first page. RATIONALE FOR ACCEPTANCE: I believe the low number of full, positive reviews is justified by the relatively narrow scope that this library covers. Within that scope, however, reviewers indicated that the library is extremely useful. Also, the reviewers submitting positive votes have indicated (and proven) significant expertise in the area, leading me to place much weight on their votes. On the other hand, the negative votes did not point out any concrete flaws in the library itself that would merit rejection. RATIONALE FOR REQUIRING A MINI-REVIEW The "no" votes did, on the other hand, indicate some skepticism of the quality of the library/documentation as submitted, and the progress of the redesign that was happening during the review. Also, as a result of the review, the potential scope of the library has expanded significantly from what was originally proposed (which mostly focused on the ability to choose the number of cases at run-time). I believe that a combination of these two give sufficient reason for a mini-review - doubts about the library can be resolved, and those that might become prospective users of the library under the expanded scope will get a chance to give their opinion. I volunteered to manage the mini-review, so once the library is ready it will hopefully not remain in the review queue for too long (as it seems that finding review managers is the biggest problem ATM). To keep the burden on the community low, I propose to treat the mini-review as a partial continuation of the current review - I will consider the "yes" votes by Tobias and Joel to be left standing unless they state otherwise, and will require any "no" votes to be (re)justified given the new condition of the library. SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE LIBRARY: * Documentation All reviewers have noted that the documentation could be improved. Specific suggestions were: * motivating example on the first page * additional examples * performance stats * more explanation of the types involved and how they are used. As the scope for the library has increased as a consequence of the review, a gentler, more detailed documentation approach might benefit the library - I believe that many people might find the new library useful, given the right motivation and examples in the documentation. * Return type Tobias Schwinger suggested that the return type should be specified explicitly in the switch_ call, rather than inferring it from the function object, and this seems to be the status quo in the newer designs. Joel de Guzman also suggested that if a version of switch_ should infer the return type, that return type should be a Boost.Variant of the types returned by each of the cases. * Default default behavior If the default behavior is left unspecified, switch_ should invoke the default constructor of the return type in the default case, rather than throwing an exception. This was suggested by Tobias Schwinger after the issue was raised by Dan Marsden. Alexander Nasonov has also indicated that a throwing default case can cause inefficiency, even when it is guaranteed not to be invoked. * Fall-through Alexander Nasonov pointed out the lack of fall-through capability in the submitted implementation. Fall-through has been incorporated into the recent designs being discussed. * Allowing void-returning function objects for the default case with a non-void returning switch Tobias Schwinger mentioned the possibility of allowing default case function objects of void return type even when the switch return type is non-void, as long as the function object call does not return. This would be useful, for example, if the function object is guaranteed to throw. After some discussion on whether determining if the return type is void can be done efficiently, it looks like the proposed solution is to use a special return type that indicates that the call will not return. Since Tobias indicated that this feature is a minor point, it could be implemented or not, depending on how well it fits into the final design. * Design There has been a lengthy discussion on the underlying design of the library, what it should offer, and whether the name of the library is appropriate. There are two types of designs that have been put forward as being appropriate and/or necessary for a Boost.Switch library. On one hand, there is the submitted design (labeled "A" in recent postings), which takes the switch cases in an MPL sequence and a single function object containing implementations of all cases. Joel de Guzman has proposed another design (labeled "B"), in which the switch cases are specified separately and allow a different function to be used for each case. Design "A" is better suited for situations in which the number of cases is determined by a compile time constant, while "B" is more appropriate for many use cases, and provides more flexibility and a more familiar syntax. The result of the discussion was that the Boost.Switch library should cover both situations, and an interface is now being developed that can be used in different ways for different uses (based on a common concept capturing case sequences). Thanks again to all that have contributed to this review, and congratulations to Steven for the accepted library. As others have stated, there is much confidence that Steven will meet the challenges successfully for the mini-review, which we will schedule as soon as the library is ready. Regards, Stjepan

1 0

[review] Fast track review of Boost.Utility/Singleton begins today
by John Torjo 14 Jan '08

14 Jan '08

Hi all, Today starts the formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Utility/Singleton library. This is a very useful utility, so I'm expecting lots of reviews ;) *Description* A Singleton describes a globally accessible and unique facility, typically implemented as a class with inaccessible constructors and a globally accessible function for clients to access a single instance which is created when accessed for the first time. This library provides three Singleton templates that share an identical interface : |- boost::singleton| : can be used to create Singletons with synchronized initialization. If further synchronization is required it has to be implemented by the user. |- boost::mutexed_singleton| : additionally ensures that concurrent access to the instance is mutually exclusive. In other words, only one thread can access the instance at a given time. |- boost::thread_specific_singleton| : instances exist once per thread. *Author* Tobias Schwinger *Download* Get it from here: http://www.boost-consulting.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filenam… Read documentation online here: http://torjo.com/tobias/ What to include in Review Comments ================================== Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. 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 finally, every review should answer this question: * 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. Best, John Torjo - Review Manager - -- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right

1 0

Switch library review begins today and ends on Jan 9th
by Stjepan Rajko 05 Jan '08

05 Jan '08

The review of the Switch library by Steven Watanabe begins today. Description: The built in C/C++ switch statement is very efficient. Unfortunately, unlike a chained if/else construct there is no easy way to use it when the number of cases depends on a template parameter. The Switch library addresses this issue. You can download the library from the Boost Vault: http://tinyurl.com/23qn7w For convenience, the docs have been uploaded here: http://tinyurl.com/2h6ut9 ... and the source file here: http://tinyurl.com/2cbfyk What to include in Review Comments Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. 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 finally, every review should answer this question: * 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. Thanks to Dan Marsden, Larry Evans, Tobias Schwinger, and Alexander Nasonov for already opening up the discussion in the following threads: http://tinyurl.com/2u6fjr [nabble/boost-user] http://tinyurl.com/267uj3 [nabble/boost-dev] Thank you for taking the time to look into this library, and I hope that some of you will be able to provide a full review for it. Regards, Stjepan

1 0

upcoming Switch library review Jan 5th - Jan 9th
by Stjepan Rajko 02 Jan '08

02 Jan '08

The review of the Switch library by Steven Watanabe will begin this Saturday, Jan 5th. Description: The built in C/C++ switch statement is very efficient. Unfortunately, unlike a chained if/else construct there is no easy way to use it when the number of cases depends on a template parameter. The Switch library addresses this issue. You can download the library from the Boost Vault: http://tinyurl.com/23qn7w For convenience, the docs have been uploaded here: http://tinyurl.com/2h6ut9 ... and the source file here: http://tinyurl.com/2cbfyk If you are interested, please consider submitting a review of this library. I will send more detailed instructions on what to include in the review on the 5th. Regards, Stjepan

1 0

Re: [Boost-announce] [Boost-users] [review] Boost.Functional/Factory library result : accepted
by John Torjo 30 Dec '07

30 Dec '07

Tobias Schwinger wrote: > John Torjo wrote: > >> We've received 3 reviews, all positive: Larry Evans, Stejan Rajko, and >> Detlef Wilkening*. >> > > I count five with Cromwell Enage and Nat Goodspeed. > > Ouch, sorry for missing these. I need to to pay more attention to boost-users list... Yes, you're right - 5 reviews, sorry again. Best, John > I'd like to thank all who participated including the review manager and > those throwing in comments. > > Happy new year! > > > Regards, > Tobias > > _______________________________________________ > Boost-users mailing list > Boost-users(a)lists.boost.org > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users > > -- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right

1 0

[review] Boost.Functional/Factory library result : accepted
by John Torjo 30 Dec '07

30 Dec '07

Hi all, The Boost.Functional/Factory library, submitted by Tobias Schwinger has been *accepted*. Thanks to all reviewers and to all who contributed before the review! We've received 3 reviews, all positive: Larry Evans, Stejan Rajko, and Detlef Wilkening*. *Suggested improvements * *Implementation *- Allocator should be inherited *Docs *- should include some hint about how to overcome the Lvalue constraint on the arguments that's mentioned in the docs: a0...aN - argument LValues to a constructor of T - separate the two templates (factory and value_factory) a little bit more in the introduction so that it reinforces that they are different in usage - better motivation - more detailed examples * note: I consider Detlef's review positive, even though he wanted 3 extensions (in light of Tobias's answer): - Better name for factory: factory_ptr or factory_pointer. - Better motivation for beginners in the docu. - Extension with a third template parameter for e.g. 2 phase construcion. Best, John -- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right

1 0

[review] Formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Functional/Factory library - extended until sunday
by John Torjo 21 Dec '07

21 Dec '07

Hi all, I've extended the review until Sunday (inclusive). I'm hoping for more reviews. So far, we've had only two. If you are interested in the library (you should be :)), please take some time to review it. This is the info you need to do a review on: *Description* Factories are callback mechanisms for constructors, so we provide two function objects, boost::value_factory and boost::factory, that encasulate object construction through direct application of the constructor or operator new, respectively. These templates make other facilities that operate on function objects (such as standard algorithms, Boost.Bind, Boost.Function, or Fusion functional adapters) applicable to constructors. *Author* Tobias Schwinger *Download* Get it from here: http://www.boost-consulting.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filenam… Read documentation online here: http://torjo.com/tobias/ What to include in Review Comments ================================== Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. 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 finally, every review should answer this question: * 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. Best, John Torjo - Review Manager - -- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right

1 0

[review] Formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Functional/Factory library - 2 days left
by John Torjo 20 Dec '07

20 Dec '07

Hi all, There are only 2 days left from the formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Functional/Factory library. We've had just one review, and we need more. If you are interested in the library (you should be :)), please take some time to review it. This is the info you need to do a review on: *Description* Factories are callback mechanisms for constructors, so we provide two function objects, boost::value_factory and boost::factory, that encasulate object construction through direct application of the constructor or operator new, respectively. These templates make other facilities that operate on function objects (such as standard algorithms, Boost.Bind, Boost.Function, or Fusion functional adapters) applicable to constructors. *Author* Tobias Schwinger *Download* Get it from here: http://www.boost-consulting.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filenam… Read documentation online here: http://torjo.com/tobias/ What to include in Review Comments ================================== Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. 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 finally, every review should answer this question: * 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. Best, John Torjo - Review Manager - -- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right

1 0

[review][unordered] Unordered accepted
by Ion Gaztañaga 19 Dec '07

19 Dec '07

Hi to all, The Unordered library submitted by Daniel James has been *accepted* into Boost. Thanks to all reviewers and all who contributed to the library before the review. We've received 8 reviews (Thosten Ottosen, Chun Ping Wang, Hervé Brönnimann, John Torjo, Cromwell Enage, Jamie Allsop, Graham Mark and Paul Bristow), and all were positive (since Chun's only complain was packaging and his ratings were all above 7 out of 10). Darren Cook privately sent me a positive mini-review (attached below). If I've missed any review, please let me know. I plan to write a post this weekend with a summary of requests/suggestions and Daniel's replies. Congrats Daniel! Regards, Ion /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Hi Ion, Not critical but the images seem to be missing. E.g. on http://igaztanaga.drivehq.com/unordered/unordered/buckets.html If I find time I will try out the library and write a review in the week, but here is a mini-review (feel free to forward to the list - I'm not subscribed at the moment): Documentation: * Fine * The concrete examples of how to use a custom type, and a custom hash function, and do everything in portable TR1, are wonderful - I've searched before and never been able to find something as clear as this seems to be. * In Table 1.4: "No equivalent. No idea why." is not very Boost-like :-) . Isn't the reason simply that there is no ordering in hash containers, so therefore no ordering function? > > * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? > > * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Yes. It is essential it gets into Boost as rapidly as possible; in fact I think it should be released as a patch to the current release. Having all of TR1 except for the hashed containers is a nasty red pimple on the otherwise very handsome nose of Boost. In particular, Visual C++ *still* does not ship with TR1 ("no plans until 2009" was the rumour I found), so anyone wanting to ship portable code is relying on Boost. And, at least for me, unordered_map is the single most useful library in TR1. Darren

1 0

[review] Formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Functional/Factory library begins today
by John Torjo 17 Dec '07

17 Dec '07

Hi all, Today starts the formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Functional/Factory library. *Description* Factories are callback mechanisms for constructors, so we provide two function objects, boost::value_factory and boost::factory, that encasulate object construction through direct application of the constructor or operator new, respectively. These templates make other facilities that operate on function objects (such as standard algorithms, Boost.Bind, Boost.Function, or Fusion functional adapters) applicable to constructors. *Author* Tobias Schwinger *Download* Get it from here: http://www.boost-consulting.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filenam… Read documentation online here: http://torjo.com/tobias/ What to include in Review Comments ================================== Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. 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 finally, every review should answer this question: * 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. Best, John Torjo - Review Manager - -- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right

1 0