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

[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

Async review scheduled for September 22, 2023 - October 2, 2023
by Mateusz Loskot 07 Sep '23

07 Sep '23

Hi, Following request from Nial and Klemens, we have scheduled new round of the Async review for September 22, 2023 - October 2, 2023 https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, on behalf of the Review Wizards

1 0

[release] Boost 1.83.0
by Marshall Clow 11 Aug '23

11 Aug '23

Release 1.83.0 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 one new library: * Boost.Compat: A repository of C++11 implementations of standard components added in later C++ standards, from Peter Dimov and contributors. The release also contains numerous enhancements and bug fixes for existing libraries. For details, including download links, see <http://www.boost.org/users/news/version_1.83.0> You can also download directly from: <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.83.0/> To install this release on your system, see <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/more/getting_started/index.html> Thanks to everyone who participated in this release. -- The Boost Release Team Marshall Clow, Glen Fernandes

1 0

[release] Boost 1.83.0 beta 1 released
by Marshall Clow 13 Jul '23

13 Jul '23

Boost release 1.83.0 beta 1 is now available at: https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/beta/1.83.0.beta1/source/ The SHA256 checksums are: 69fe7224568acfa5491bfaa04fd522bf7cfca1800aa192de96ce560da714902f boost_1_83_0_b1.7z 49afc7c20d65949f7b775060bbec403e7e81d207949dd9f412e2d4569ea5d3f7 boost_1_83_0_b1.zip fe3895ee9ac78cf57328415f1b3bf3da7ea2ccb3ad87bf0d9b720910d99d18ae boost_1_83_0_b1.tar.bz2 fbbe0d439db5b65f194eb61b89b5cda0575387b0b23fbb85900c3c9ef9eb64bf boost_1_83_0_b1.tar.gz There was one bug reported during the beta process; Boost.Context does not build on ARM64 systems. This will be fixed for the final release. If you want to fix it locally, edit the file libs/context/build/Jamfile.v2: - else if [ os.platform ] = "ARM" { tmp = aapcs ; } + else if [ os.platform ] in ARM ARM64 { tmp = aapcs ; } The web site has not yet been updated (tomorrow, I hope) but when it is, the release notes will be at: https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_83_0.html Please try the beta and report any problems you encounter. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the release. -- Boost Release Team

1 0

[release] Boost 1.82.0
by Marshall Clow 14 Apr '23

14 Apr '23

Release 1.82.0 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 contain numerous enhancements and bug fixes for existing libraries. For details, including download links, see <http://www.boost.org/users/news/version_1.82.0> You can also download directly from: <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.82.0/> To install this release on your system, see <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/more/getting_started/index.html> Thanks to everyone who participated in this release. -- The Boost Release Team Marshall Clow, Glen Fernandes

1 0

[release] Boost 1.82.0 beta 1 released
by Marshall Clow 15 Mar '23

15 Mar '23

Boost release 1.82.0 beta 1 is now available at: https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/beta/1.82.0.beta1/source/ The SHA256 checksums are: efe17bea3f0b2c11f34828f37d5777f30eb6fef57af355c6a6664b08a4339999 boost_1_82_0_b1.7z 0af2a60f76abb4f411b1bd9c1a553f64454d9414990e8cc12f02f3b431e2ac45 boost_1_82_0_b1.tar.gz 495b2ae2f6970ea1e635f80222d9f6978148496cdd163e87c37cdd6de3b5ccfc boost_1_82_0_b1.zip edf4cb9e8e5a14412b91311438478ef6ce12afe2a54714eb2f0632a454c3d8d5 boost_1_82_0_b1.tar.bz2 Release notes (still need updates): https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_82_0.html Please try the beta and report any problems you encounter. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the release. -- Boost Release Team

1 0

Boost Libraries and Dropping C++ Language Support
by Glen Fernandes 22 Feb '23

22 Feb '23

*Boost library authors and maintainers are free to drop support for old C++ standards in their libraries, at any time. * This includes libraries that other Boost libraries depend on. It even includes core libraries like Boost.Core or Boost.Static_Assert. We ask that maintainers do the right thing by all our users (which may include other Boost libraries) by announcing a future breakage *at least two Boost releases in advance*. When that eventual release time arrives, if Boost libraries are broken in older standards modes due to another Boost library dropping support, it will not block the Boost release. This means that we do not need to announce "Boost is dropping C++03" because Boost doesn't "support C++03" now as it is. It means that you, maintainer of Boost.X, should realize that you are free to announce that "Boost.X is dropping C++XY in version 1.Z" as you see fit. Boost in its infancy thrived because its libraries were on the cutting edge. Boost libraries today should similarly not be confined simply because other Boost libraries have chosen to depend on them. Furthermore, as Boost release managers we support authors exercising this freedom, and do not intend to impose any restrictions on what language support they must maintain. We will add a page to the Boost website stating the above formally. -- The release team (Glen Fernandes, Marshall Clow)

1 0

Fwd: [boost] [mustache review] Period has been extended until the 18th
by Mateusz Loskot 12 Feb '23

12 Feb '23

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Klemens Morgenstern via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 at 20:19 Subject: [boost] [mustache review] Period has been extended until the 18th To: <boost(a)lists.boost.org> Cc: Klemens Morgenstern <klemensdavidmorgenstern(a)gmail.com> Due to the few reviews and the overlap with the WG21 meeting I have successfully petitioned the review wizards to extend the review period until next Saturday, the 18th of february. Please consider writing a boost.mustache review, since only two have been submitted up to now. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

1 0

Fwd: [boost] aedis review starts today
by Mateusz Loskot 15 Jan '23

15 Jan '23

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Klemens Morgenstern via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2023 at 16:17 Subject: [boost] aedis review starts today To: <boost(a)lists.boost.org> Cc: Klemens Morgenstern <klemensdavidmorgenstern(a)gmail.com> The formal review of the aedis starts today (15th) and ends next week on Tuesday (24th). The library was developed & submitted by Marcelo. Aedis ================= Aedis is a Redis client library built on top of Boost.Asio that implements the latest version of the Redis communication protocol RESP3. Some of its distinctive features are * A connection class that provides high-level functions to execute Redis commands and receive server pushes concurrently. * Automatic pipelining of commands. * Support for STL containers and serialization of user-defined data types. * Low-latency: Responses can be read in their final data-structure without creating copies. Aedis links Github: https://github.com/mzimbres/aedis Homepage: https://mzimbres.github.io/aedis/ Git tag: v1.4.1 Tarball: https://github.com/mzimbres/aedis/archive/refs/tags/v1.4.1.tar.gz Redis Links: Redis: https://redis.io/ RESP3: https://github.com/redis/redis-specifications/blob/master/protocol/RESP3.md Pipelines: https://redis.io/docs/manual/pipelining/ Redis commands: https://redis.io/commands/ Local Redis =========== Redis can be also easily installed on your local machine, for example, on Debian run "apt install redis". You might also want to use docker https://www.docker.com/blog/how-to-use-the-redis-docker-official-image/ Redis server for the Boost review ================================= We also have a public aedis server available for testing, please contact me or Marcelo for the details. Review ======== Please explicitly state that you either *accept* or *reject* the inclusion of this library into boost. Also please indicate the time & effort spent on the evaluation and give the reasons for your decision. The review is open to anyone who is prepared to put in the work of evaluating and reviewing the library. Prior experience in contributing to Boost reviews is not a requirement. Some questions to consider: - Does this library bring real benefit to C++ developers for real world use-case? - Do you have an application for this library? - Does the API match with current best practices? - Is the documentation helpful and clear? - Did you try to use it? What problems or surprises did you encounter? - What is your evaluation of the implementation? Additionally, stating your knowledge of redis and asio would be helpful for me. More information about the Boost Formal Review Process can be found at: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html Reviews can also be submitted privately to me, and I will not disclose who sent them. I might however cite passages from those reviews in my final decision. Thanks to Marcelo for providing us with a new library & thanks for all the reviews in advance. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

1 0

Mustache scheduled for review
by Mateusz Loskot 04 Jan '23

04 Jan '23

Folks, I'd like to thank Klemens Morgenstern for volunteering as a review manager of the Mustache library, and Peter Dimov for submitting the library. The Mustache review will take place between the dates of February 5, 2023 - February 14, 2023 https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html As usual, the review manager will announce the beginning of the review with details. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot on behalf of Boost Review Wizards

1 0