February 2006 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[config] math_info test issue
by Vladimir Prus 15 Feb '06

15 Feb '06

Hi, I'm looking at libs/config/test/Jamfile, and it starts with this: # *** DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE BY HAND *** However, looking at the libs/config/tools/generate.cpp I don't see any "math_info" test being generated. Further, changelog contains this: 2005-12-06 20:01 johnmaddock * test/Jamfile: Added new file math_info to probe for known or suspected math-related problems and setup. There's no associated change to generate.cpp. See seems like the file was edited by hand. Am I wrong? - Volodya

2 6

[config hash, set, ... and gcc library]
by Robert Ramey 15 Feb '06

15 Feb '06

There have been some changes to config which I really haven't been understood in detail but it seems that the extension namespace isn't setup right and the serialization library tests from these collections are failing. Strangly, stlist tests seem to work OK. Could someone who is more familiar with these changes please take a look at this? Robert Ramey

2 1

Boost date_time question
by Serguei KOLOS 15 Feb '06

15 Feb '06

Hello In order to pass boost::posix_time::ptime objects over network, I want to convert them to some data of one of the basic C types on sender host and be able to do the backward conversion on receiver host. Both conversions should preserve the time with microseconds precision. Could somebody suggest the correct way of doing that? Cheers, Sergei

1 0

bcbboost - The unofficial BCB Boost patches
by Nicola Musatti 15 Feb '06

15 Feb '06

Hallo, everybody. As you probably know Borland released their new C++ product, BCB 2006, right after Boost 1.33.1 came out. As a result users of this product are faced with a longish period of time without a version of Boost that supports it. Moreover, given that standard compliance doesn't seem to have increased all that much with the new compiler it remains to be seen how many of the libraries that currently are compatible with Borland compilers will continue to be as they evolve. As a stopgap measure I created the bcbboost project in SourceForge to collect patches against Boost 1.33.1 that make it possible to use Boost with BCB 2006. Right now there's only the minimum necessary to build the libraries to the same level as BCB6. I kind of hope that some of those interested will rather join forces than repeat the same steps over and over each on their own. I also hope to submit to Boost any newly discovered fix that is applicable to the main development line. For those interested: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bcbboost Comments, suggestions and bug reports are obviously welcome. Help is even more welcome :-) Cheers, Nicola Musatti

4 4

Late asio review
by Chris Cleeland 15 Feb '06

15 Feb '06

Hi, I'd like to offer the following comments on asio based on 15+ years of network programming in various languages and various situations, but as somebody who is pretty much a boost novice. I wish I could become a boost expert instantly; my commentary from many previous experiences (some successful, and some not) trying to wrap the network programming monster up with higher level abstractions. There are definitely areas that felt "wierd" to me. Unfortunately, I don't know if that is b/c I'm not in tune with "the boost way", or if it's something in either the design or the implementation. In general, I tried to ignore those sorts of things. Regardless, these are the things that really stick out to me: 1. too abstract in places Specifically, I'm talking about the whole buffer thing and the hiding of the demuxer's implementation. I'll address each of these separately: (a) buffers: from a certain perspective, this sounds nice, but it seems that there are already so many abstractions over a (void* + length)--do we REALLY need another? Could this be simplified to something like std::pair<void*, std::size_t> ? (b) hiding of demux impl: first, I don't like the fact that it chooses for me at compile time. Abstraction is nice, but sometimes I, as the programmer, really DO know better or have good reason to choose one thing over another. Anytime libraries completely force my hand, I rebel. In general, I feel that this library throws in enough abstraction to be in the way, but not enough to completely abstract away the features that it's really using. I don't see how one can get hold of the raw socket descriptor to twiddle options that the library hasn't abstracted. I also know that after 15+ years of network programming, KNOWING the details all the way down to the wire is important for how one writes code. Purists may say that one should never make such assumptions, but the reality is that when your "wire" is gigabit ethernet you get to write code with a certain set of assumption that is completely different from assumptions in place when the "wire" are high-bandwidth/high-latency satellites in geosynch orbit. The abstractions that are in place in this library seem to insulate me too much. I would prefer to see a "you don't have to know if you don't want to" philosophy rather than a "you don't need to know because I don't think you need to know" philosophy. 2. unnecessary features Is hostname resolution really so much of an overhead that we need asynch hostname resolution? If the feature were basically "free", I would say okay, but the fact that it requires firing up an extra thread behind the scenes (another one of my pet peeves) makes it seem like a wholly unnecessary feature. 3. header-only implementation Besides the fact that this style is "wierd" to me (that's a personal thing), this implementation choice forces users' hands down the line. First, it forces all the code in the "library" to be replicated in every executable. This is not efficient and increases footprint. 4. How would I implement a timed write with the current async API? By "timed write", I mean that I want to write some hunk of data, but I need to know if the write hasn't completed within a certain window of time. This is a common need in performance-sensitive systems, and writing it synchronously can be done, but how do I write it asynch? 5. TSS and threads Shouldn't these rely on boost.thread? I'm especially thinkng of TSS in this case, bceause in ACE/TAO we've found that TSS is, at the very least, inconsistent across platforms. See changelog entry in ACE_wrappers/Changelogs/ChangeLog-05a for one of t he more aggregious examples. Wed Feb 16 16:18:45 2005 Dale Wilson <wilson_d(a)ociweb.com> I look forward to seeing Jeff's consolidation of all the review material and what Chris comes up with afterwards! -- Chris Cleeland, cleeland_c @ ociweb.com, http://www.milodesigns.com/~chris Principal Software Engineer, Object Computing, Inc., +1 314 579 0066 Support Me Supporting Cancer Survivors in Ride for the Roses 2005 >>>>>>>>> Donate at http://www.milodesigns.com/donate <<<<<<<<<

6 10

Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?
by Beman Dawes 15 Feb '06

15 Feb '06

I'm gettng pestered by the automatic regression test failure notification system about Boost.Filesystem with GCC 2.95.3. Does anyone still care? I could just mark all the failures as expected, but if no one cares anymore then we ought to stop testing 2.95.3, free up the testing resources and stop pestering Boost developers about 2.95.3 failures. --Beman

16 30

[bjam] tools/build/jam_src REMOVED!
by Rene Rivera 15 Feb '06

15 Feb '06

And it's 48 hours later... I just removed tools/build/jam_src. People should use the new tools/jam/src location. Yell if problems show up with the new location. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo

1 0

Boost logo in vector format
by Vladimir Prus 15 Feb '06

15 Feb '06

Hello! Is the Boost logo available in a vector format, preferrably SVG? I recall vector format was one of the requirements, but can see only boost.png in CVS. - Volodya

2 1

What's up with boost/utility/ ?
by Ronald Garcia 14 Feb '06

14 Feb '06

I'm wondering how the "boost/utility/" directory and utility.hpp header are managed. A few things I have noticed about it: - on the library documentation page, "utility" links point to "utility.htm" which does not document all of the libraries in the utility directory. Some of those libraries, like enable_if, have their own entry. - checked_delete() is documented in "utility.htm", but it is not in the boost/utility directory - there is a documentation page "boost/utility/index.html", but it doesn't seem to be linked to from anywhere. Some of the documentation referenced on that page has no other reference, and therefore seems inaccessible except through google. Is Boost.Utility a single library with multiple developers? Is it a directory where separate libraries get placed under some criteria? Where would a link to "boost/utility/index.html" rightfully go (or should each header in utility have its own documentation from the toplevel)? Why is checked_delete not in the "boost/utility" directory? Thanks, ron

2 1

[parameter] Named Template Parameter
by Felipe Magno de Almeida 14 Feb '06

14 Feb '06

Hi, I'm adventuring through the named template parameter support in the parameter library, using the test ntp.cpp as a documentation. But, AFAICS, there's no support for named template template parameters, is that right? Couldnt it be possible to add such feature? I think it is possible if we use a different binding and an template_template_keyword (or with another name) ? the parameter requirements would be different though.... I could code this support if there would be a support on how to do it (what would it break and etc?) I'm really needing this feature ASAP. Thanks, -- Felipe Magno de Almeida

2 2