- Boost-users - lists.preview.boost.org

Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Interest in a C++20 Unit Testing Framework?
by Krzysztof Jusiak 24 Nov '19

24 Nov '19

I see your point, but I'm not advocating here for providing multiple ways of doing the same thing as I agree it might be confusing although I'd also argue that it's already a case with boost.test for example (single header/static/shared library or BOOST_TEST, BOOST_CHECK, BOOST_CHECK_EQ accomplish pretty much the same things but there are also a trade-offs here so it depends) Also, having a possibility for users to do so is valuable IMHO but I wouldn't expose any macros from the library. On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 9:55 AM Hans Dembinski <hans.dembinski(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 23. Nov 2019, at 04:31, Krzysztof Jusiak via Boost < > boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > > However, with [Boost].UT there is nothing stopping anyone from using > simple > > macros (one-lines) to achieve other frameworks syntax > > The good bit about it is that it's an opt-in 'feature' as opposed to > being > > the only available option (see example below [1]). > > But then you have split in the user base, some will use the macros others > will use the macro-free syntax, and both will have difficulty in > understanding the code of other. > >

1 0

Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Interest in a C++20 Unit Testing Framework?
by Vinnie Falco 24 Nov '19

24 Nov '19

On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 9:49 AM Hans Dembinski via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > both will have difficulty in understanding the code of other. BOOST_TEST(b) What could this possibly mean? /me scratches head Regards

1 0

boost::regex (implementation question)
by John Emmas 23 Nov '19

23 Nov '19

Yesterday I downloaded boost v1.71.0 The file 'regex/v4/cregex.hpp' contains declarations for functions like 'regexecA' and 'regexecW'. There are similar declarations for regfree, regcomp & regerror. But where are the implementations for those functions? Or is my own app expected to provide them? Many thanks, John Emmas

2 4

Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Interest in a C++20 Unit Testing Framework?
by mateusz＠loskot.net 23 Nov '19

23 Nov '19

<quote author='Boost - Users mailing list'> (CC'ed to boost-users) On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 21:53, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:24 AM Krzysztof Jusiak via Boost-users > <boost-users(a)lists.boost.org>> > > I was wondering whether there is any interest in exploring > > a C++20 single header/single module, macro-free Unit > > Testing Framework with no dependencies? > > I have no interest in a library that requires C++20, especially > considering that C++20 is not even official yet but also because once > C++20 is released, there will be hardly any users for many years. This > project seems very much like it was written "just because", to use the > latest language features, rather than for pragmatic reasons. I don't > see anything compelling to use it over Boost.LightweightTest for > example. I had a look at the current documentation and examples, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only sceptical about it. My opinion is very similar to what Hans, Raffi and Vinnie explained. Macros in testing and benchmarking frameworks are kosher, in fact, they can be very helpul to organize and structure large amount of tests that in turn makes it easier to search and browse through the code. I can't imagine how any of the modern IDE's will support the string-driven syntax. As a long time maintainer of SOCI library, I'm no stranger to the syntax-first library development [1], still, I find the UT's string-based test cases approach as an interesting curiosity with very little practical value. (It falls into similar drawer as the (over)use of emoji in commit messages on GitHub :)). Boost is known as a C++ guinea pigs playground, so any library can make it in. If it does, I just hope Boost will not allow to adopt the UT as a test framework of choice of any/too many of its libraries. [1] https://www.drdobbs.com/database/a-simple-oracle-call-interface/184405930?p… Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users(a)lists.boost.org https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users </quote> Quoted from: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Interest-in-a-C-20-Unit-Testing-Framewor… _____________________________________ Sent from http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com

1 0

[review][fixed_string] FixedString review starts Nov 25
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 21 Nov '19

21 Nov '19

The Boost formal review of Krystian Stasiowski and Vinnie Falco's FixedString library will take place November 25 - December 4, 2019. This is an early call for you to consider participating in the review. Feedback and constructive criciticism from experts and not-so-experts alike is very much welcome. FixedString being a relatively small and straightforward library, you will find it very easy to familiarize yourself with it and contribute back to the community. FixedString provides a dynamically resizable string of characters with compile-time fixed capacity and contiguous embedded storage in which the characters are placed within the string object itself. Its API closely resembles that of std::string. GitHub repository: https://github.com/18/fixed_string Online docs: https://18.github.io/doc/fixed_string If you feel like reviewing FixedString you can start now prepping --though I'd ask you to refrain from submitting actual reviews till Nov 25. Read the docs, download/fork the code, read/run it, maybe try integrating it into some project of yours, ask questions to the authors, preferrably on Boost or Boost Users mailing lists. The FixedString initiative arose from a very lively discussion within the community: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2019/09/246943.php , so I sincerely hope this review will be a fruitful, crowded one. Don't let me down! Best regards, Joaquín M López Muñoz Review manager for candidate Boost.FixedString

1 0

[release] Boost 1.72.0 Beta 1
by Michael Caisse 21 Nov '19

21 Nov '19

Boost release 1.72.0 beta 1 is now available at: <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.72.0.beta.1/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 5a6b5cbd27b8ca0c7741b715e022a3bf05aecbb1e73dc72dd82eef9622374bd5 boost_1_72_0_b1.7z 6c85a7aed198757f5e4be66a971ae90a25c4ce32703fecfb5bb19019bd80947c boost_1_72_0_b1.tar.bz2 be4a3fdaa84d5a8b25863651043308e02645f3fbf772b7623ee6462fb1dbad09 boost_1_72_0_b1.tar.gz 95181a5f3de0078b8fc031f63a4dc8be4d70b7d3d5cde3b266d2cd98bd4b61b0 boost_1_72_0_b1.zip For details of what's in the release, see <https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_72_0.html>. Please download the beta, give it a try, and report any problems you encounter. Thanks, -- The Boost Release Team

1 0

boost::errinfo_stacktrace?
by Nat Goodspeed 21 Nov '19

21 Nov '19

Since the arrival of Boost.Stacktrace, I've been expecting a conventional boost::errinfo_stacktrace helper to join the suite of other boost::errinfo_mumble helpers. Is there a PR open with that? -- NAT LINDEN | Senior Software Engineer | Real Life: Nat Goodspeed LINDEN LAB | Create Virtual Experiences <https://www.lindenlab.com>

4 5

[multi_index] Indices interface type for overload resolution
by Christophe B 20 Nov '19

20 Nov '19

Hi, I have currently template <typename Key, typename Value> std::vector<Key> keys(const std::map<Key, Value> &m) { ... } I'd like to write an overload that works also with the indices interface of multi_index_container. Suppose I have a multi_index_container with ordered unique indexes tagged "by_id" and "by_name". struct by_id {}; struct by_name {}; using BMI = multi_index::multi_index_container<Value, multi_index::indexed_by< multi_index::ordered_unique<by_id, multi_index::key<&Value::id>>, multi_index::ordered_unique<by_name, multi_index::key<&Value::name>> >>; BMI bmi; auto k = keys(bmi.get<by_name>()); Based on the documentation, I tried template< typename Tag,typename Value,typename IndexSpecifierList,typename Allocator > auto keys(const typename multi_index::index< multi_index::multi_index_container<Value,IndexSpecifierList,Allocator>,Tag>::type& m) { typedef decltype(c.key_extractor()(*c.begin())) key_type; // A better definition would be welcome std::vector<key_type> result; result.reserve(c.size()); for (const auto &elem : c) { result.push_back(c.key_extractor()(elem)); } return result; } But the overload resolution fails. What should be the interface of keys in order to support indices interface of multi_index_container? Thank you, Christophe B

3 2

bracket_and_solve_root "rising" option
by Saurabh T 07 Nov '19

07 Nov '19

Hi, I would like a way to bracket the root without having to compute or specify the "rising" flag to "bracket_and_solve_root". Is there a way to edit the bracketing implementation so the user need not specify that option? Thanks, saurabh

3 3

[preprocessor] increase tuple size
by pavel b 07 Nov '19

07 Nov '19

Hi, preprocessor/config/limits.hpp limits tuple size to 64 elements. Changing the BOOST_PP_LIMIT_TUPLE in this file seems not to have any effect. Is it possible to increase the maximal tuple size? Are there scripts to update dependent macros like BOOST_PP_TUPLE_ELEM_* in preprocessor/tuple/elem.hpp? Thanks in advance

3 7