May 2014 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

ptr_vector requiring non-const iterator for insert
by Florian Burkart 26 Jun '14

26 Jun '14

Hi, I noticed that ptr_vector requires a non-const iterator for insert. This is inherited from ptr_sequence_adapter, which defines iterator insert( iterator position, T* x ); Under C++11, this differs from std::vector, which, since C++11, is happy to take const_iterators. iterator insert( const_iterator pos, const T& value ); I read somewhere that C++11 was attempting to clear up some confusion in the standard between iterator constness and container constness. Just wondering whether this should be adopted (e.g. changed) in ptr containers. Gave me an error when I switched from vector to ptr_vector in a drop-in fashion. Not sure whether that is already planned, but google didn't find anything. Florian

2 1

[random] new threefry random engine
by Thijs van den Berg 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

Hi all, I've completed a nice new random engine that I would like to propose for addition to boost/random. The engine is called "threefry" and it's based on the paper "Parallel random numbers: as easy as 1, 2, 3" by Salmon, John K. and Moraes, Mark A. and Dror, Ron O. and Shaw, David E. I've been using it myself a lot for the last couple of years, and now I've rewritten it so that it will fit in the boost random framework and adhere to the concepts. It has some really nice properties, in particular for large scale parallel computing: * High quality randomness (according to the BigCrush tests) with a cycle length of 2^258 * Fast (comparable to Mersenne Twister) & little memory usage (13x 64 bit integers) * O(1) discard and guarantees for non-overlapping sequences when the (up to 256 bit) seeds are unequal I've uploaded the code, description and tests to https://github.com/sitmo/threefry The actual engine is at https://github.com/sitmo/threefry/blob/master/random/include/boost/random/t… I would really appreciate any feedback about the idea for inclusion and of course comments about the quality of the code,tests,docs kind regards, Thijs Sitmo Consultancy B.V. Financial Modelling & Data Science + 31 6 24110061 thijs(a)sitmo.com P.O. Box 1059, 2600BB, Delft, The Netherlands

10 60

[review] Convert library
by Jeroen Habraken 12 Jun '14

12 Jun '14

Hi, As promised my review of the boost::convert library. Note that the questions were answered in a seemingly random order, thus I hope it all comes together. Secondly, being the author of the boost::coerce library [2][3] I may be a little biased at times, please forgive me. -- What is your evaluation of the design? There are two parts to this, the design of the backend and the design of the interface that the user predominantly sees. I have little to say on the first, the notion of multiple backend converters is a big step forwards and their interface is sane. I'm far less convinced when it comes to the user-facing interface as I believe the simple tasks should be simple and intuitive, whereas the harder tasks may be harder. The most trivial use of boost::convert, and boost::lexical_cast and boost::coerce simply don't compare in my opinion. boost::cstringstream_converter cnv; int i = boost::convert<int>::from("23", cnv).value(); versus int i = boost::lexical_cast<int>("23"); int j = boost::coerce::as<int>("23"); When the convert library makes it into boost I'd want to mentally deprecate lexical_cast as a library I should use, and always use convert instead. This means convert should have a default converter, which may well be backed by lexical_cast with an interface such as: int i = boost::convert<int>::from("23").value(); This still doesn't completely satisfy me as I'd like to write int i = boost::convert<int>::from("23"); but it'd be an improvement in my opinion. Now I'm aware lexical_cast doesn't have a non-throwing interface, and it probably never will, but I've solved the problem as follows in boost::coerce: int i = boost::coerce::as_default<int>("XXX"); int j = boost::coerce::as_default<int>("XXX", tag::hex()); int k = boost::coerce::as_default<int>("XXX", 23); int l = boost::coerce::as_default<int>("XXX", tag::hex(), 23); The former two returning the default-constructed int, 0, the latter two returning 23. That said, I'll be the first to admit the coerce interface isn't perfect, the fact that I need SFINAE to distinguish between as_default calls with two parameters, the second either being a tag (somewhat similar to your converters but not quite) or the default value goes to show just that. However I'd prefer int i = boost::convert<int>::from("23", cnv); int i = boost::convert<int>::from_default("23", cnv, 0); to the current interface using value_or(0). This is subjective though, and quite possibly a matter of taste. In summary, before this turns into too long a rant, I think the current user-facing interface can be improved substantially, but I'm well aware this is subjective. -- What is your evaluation of the implementation? I've only had a quick glance at the code and it still looks fine. The gripe I had two years ago regarding the use of reserved names (include guards prefixed with "__") has been fixed. A few comments though: In the boost::lexical_cast based converter there is a try { } catch (...) { } which I believe to be an overly broad catch as lexical_cast explicitly throws a boost::bad_lexical_cast. If in an unlikely event a std::bad_alloc were to be thrown for example I'd rather not have boost::convert hide it from me. In the std::strtol based converter errno isn't checked, and it must be noted that strtol accepts leading whitespace which may or may not be wanted. I've implemented what I believe to be a correct converter using strtol which checks for the leading whitespace in [0], but it comes with no guarantees as it's quite tricky indeed. The new C++11 wrapper std::stol and friends in [1] may be of use here, but unfortunately they only have a throwing interface. All converters are added to the main boost namespace which is crowded enough as it is -- hi boost::_1 --, and libraries should add their functionality to their own namespaces in my opinion. With the current design it's not possible to add them in the boost::convert namespace but I believe they should be in their own namespace, may I suggest boost::converter. It must be said that the first two comments are minor at best, the last regarding the namespace is more important but potentially quite trivial to fix. -- What is your evaluation of the documentation? I've found it to be very hard to write documentation as the library author as at some point you're so intimately familiar with your library that it's hard to get a feel for what the user needs. Whilst there are some rough edges I think the current documentation is decent enough for it not to pose a problem. Again a few comments: The motivation should probably be addressed first, not near the end. The printf and std::strtol based converters aren't documented, and the converters should probably be grouped into a sub-section along with an explanation of how to write your own. Last of all I'd like to see an examples directory showing the examples from the documentation, you already have a test/encryption.hpp which probably belongs there. -- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? In the previous review I've argued the library its functionality should be added to boost::lexical_cast. Whilst I still hold that position for the previous version of the library I believe this is no longer the case for the present version, largely due to the added support for multiple backends. There would be no practical way for lexical_cast to add this, and I believe it to be very useful indeed. -- Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? I've tried the library with Clang 3.2 and 3.4, and GCC 4.6 and 4.8 on Mac OS X 10.9.3 and the examples from the documentation using the sstream converter compile and run fine. When I tried the printf_converter something as simple as: #include <boost/convert/api.hpp> #include <boost/convert/converter/printf.hpp> int main(int, char *[]) { return boost::convert<int>::from("23", boost::printf_converter()).value(); } failed to compile. It's missing includes as adding the following to converter/printf.hpp fixes the problem: #include <boost/mpl/find.hpp> #include <boost/mpl/vector.hpp> This probably indicates that you're trying to test too much in a single file, and had the includes included via a different boost library. In the previous review I noticed that boost::convert<int>::from('1', cnv).value() spew a rather long error message. This has since been fixed, the error message is now considerably shorter making it easier -- will it ever be easy with C++ -- to figure out what's going on. I must note here that the error message the latest versions of GCC produced is actually easier to figure out than the one Clang produced. -- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? Something between a quick reading and an in-depth study, now probably leaning towards the latter. -- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? As the author of boost::coerce, which I've admittedly ignored for far too long, I'm familiar with the conversion domain. Consequently I've seen the pitfalls and endured the hardships in designing and implementing such a library, my utmost respect for having it reviewed not once, but twice! And finally: -- Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? In my previous review this was a straight no, stating that the functionality should be added to boost::lexical_cast. With the current design supporting multiple backends this no longer holds true as I've stated in the evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library. Again, the library is quite useful, but, I so strongly disagree with the current user-facing interface that I can't straight-out accept it. Once the library is accepted this interface is set in stone and like marriage it's "speak now or forever hold your peace". As such I'm voting YES, CONDITIONALLY on the interface being simplified for the seemingly simple cases as most of my other comments were minor or quite trivial to fix. With that out of the way I'd like to propose the following if you're interested. Let's have a look at whether it may be possible to merge the functionally of boost::convert and boost::coerce, as they seem to have grown towards each other with the possibility to support multiple backends. Two years ago I'd never have proposed this, but I've mellowed a bit since then. You seem to have focussed on backends primarily backed by std::stringstream and friends whereas I have focussed on a backend backed by boost::spirit. These may end up complementing leading to a single library capable of supporting both, being more generic and powerful to the user when done right. Regardless of whether we end up going this way I'd love to have a discussion on the interface, either on the mailing list or offline as this is currently a major stumbling block for me. Jeroen [0] https://github.com/VeXocide/coerce/blob/master/libs/coerce/example/backend.… [1] http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/string/basic_string/stol [2] https://github.com/VeXocide/coerce/ [3] http://vexocide.org/coerce/

15 78

Tick: Trait instrospection library for C++14
by paul Fultz 10 Jun '14

10 Jun '14

Hi, I developed a trait introspection library for C++14 based on Eric Niebler's concept checking, here: https://github.com/pfultz2/Tick So you can build a simple `is_incrementable` trait like this: TICK_TRAIT(is_incrementable) { template<class T> auto requires(T&& x) -> TICK_VALID( x++, ++x ); }; Then use it like this: static_assert(is_incrementable<T>(), "Not incrementable"); Also, you can validate the return of an expressions like this: TICK_TRAIT(is_equality_comparable) { template<class T, class U> auto requires(T&& x, U&& y) -> TICK_VALID( returns<bool>(x == y), returns<bool>(x != y) ); }; You can also match against another trait using placeholder expressions: TICK_TRAIT(is_incrementable) { template<class T> auto requires(T&& x) -> TICK_VALID( return<std::is_integral<_>>(x++), return<std::is_integral<_>>(++x) ); }; Any feedback would be appreciated. Also, I don't knw if there would be any interest in incorporating this into boost. Thanks, Paul

7 13

[modularization] proposal and poll
by Julian Gonggrijp 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

Dear Boost mailing list members, I would like to revive the topic of Boost inter-library dependencies, suggest two global changes to Boost and ask whether you agree with the course of action I propose. RATIONALE Boost recently transitioned from a monolithic SVN repository to a "modular" Git repository. One of the potential benefits of this new structure is that it may allow users to copy much less of Boost when they need only a small part of it. I believe that two additional, evolutionary changes are needed to truly unlock that benefit. The currently-standard way to use the new Git repository is to recursively clone the super-project and all its submodules, one for each of the >100 libraries. In order to use Boost in a truly modular way, a developer would rather just clone only the libraries she needs (including dependencies). Unfortunately, there is currently no feasible way to do that [see also 1]: - Manually: this is cumbersome and generally hard because there are many (undocumented) interdependencies between Boost libraries. - Automatically: as far as I know Ryppl is the only existing attempt at providing automated dependency handling for Boost, but it is a very ambitious project that attempts to do much more and it is currently neither finished nor being actively developed. I think there could be a less ambitious but faster way to provide automated dependency handling. It would take no more than some static configuration, to list for each library what other Boost libraries it depends on, combined with a simple script that automatically traverses the dependency graph and clones just the necessary submodules. This script may then be hooked into the bootstrap script. I think I could write the dependency handler, and I would be willing to, though I can't currently provide any indication of when I would be able to start. However, even if we had an automated way to handle dependencies, that would not be a sufficient solution to true modularity. As has been discussed before, the interdependencies between Boost libraries are currently so strong, that even using a single header file may likely require the user to copy a substantial portion of Boost [2]. This is especially the case because there are many cyclical dependencies [3, 4]. Stephen Kelly investigated how the interdependencies between Boost libraries could be reduced, especially the cyclical dependencies. He concluded that most cyclical dependencies could be eliminated and that the dependency graph could be simplified substantially overall. He also described concrete ways to achieve this. [3 and onwards] I believe it would still be worthwhile to reduce interdependencies between Boost libraries in the way Stephen proposed, or with a very similar approach. Stephen told me he is willing to re-analyze the dependencies as many times as needed as he did before and to make recommendations. Together with an automated way to handle dependencies, this should enable users to install only a small portion of Boost if that is all they need. It will also make the Boost super- project more flexible overall. PROPOSAL The following (evolutionary) global changes to Boost should be planned and given priority over any other proposals [e.g. 5], in the following order: 1. Reduction of dependencies between Boost libraries. 2. Simple but effective automation of dependency handling. POLL I think it may be easier for the steering committee to justify any decision on this proposal, if they have hard statistics about the amount of support it receives. Therefore, I invite every opinionated person reading this to reply with a vote, either in favour of the proposal or against it. I invite you to do this even if you do not feel the need or find the time to provide arguments for your position. You can later re-vote if you change your mind. I will count the votes, and when there are more than 30 I will start posting the statistics occasionally. Votes are public so everyone can verify my data when necessary. Anyone, including the steering committee, can then use the numbers however they choose. Thanks in advance, -Julian ____________ [1] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2014/05/213115.php [2] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/10/207379.php [3] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/10/207384.php [4] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/10/207422.php [5] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2014/05/213229.php

15 49

[optional] Is detail/none_t.hpp needed?
by Andrey Semashev 06 Jun '14

06 Jun '14

Hi, I've noticed there's boost/detail/none_t.hpp header, which basically reflects boost/none_t.hpp. Worse even, it would cause a conflict if both these headers are included. A search didn't reveal any users of this header. Since it's a detail, could this header be removed?

2 5

[multiprecision] General/design query about which conversions should be implicit/explicit
by John Maddock 04 Jun '14

04 Jun '14

Folks, I have an open bug report https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/10082 that requests that conversions from floating point to rational multiprecision-types be made implicit (currently they're explicit). Now on the one hand the bug report is correct: these are non-lossy conversions, so there's no harm in them being implicit. However, it still sort of feels wrong to me, the only arguments against I can come up with are: 1) An implicit conversion lets you assign values such as 0.1 to a rational (which actually leads to 3602879701896397/36028797018963968 not 1/10), where as making the conversion explicit at least forces you to use a cast (or an explicit construction). 2) Floating point values can result in arbitrarily large integer parts to the rational, effectively running the machine out of memory. Arguably the converting constructor should guard against that, though frankly exactly how is less clear :-( Does anyone else have any strong views or insights into this? Thanks in advance, John.

8 8

[GSoC][MPL11] Post C++Now update
by Louis Dionne 04 Jun '14

04 Jun '14

Dear Boost, A lot happened during the past week in Aspen; the goal of this message is to summarize insights, changes and feedback received wrt MPL11. The slides of the presentation are available at [1]. The second part of the presentation is especially relevant to get an overview of the designs considered so far. Merging the MPL and Fusion -------------------------- After discussing the issue several times during the week, I (and others) think it might be possible to merge Fusion and the MPL into a single library. I am currently trying to write a library that does that. Since this constitutes a large reorientation, I created a new repository which is available at [2]. Those with interest should consider subscribing to the repository to be updated as I make progress. Iterator-free design -------------------- I was a bit anxious that people would complain about this, but the contrary happened. Nobody complained and some people expressed support. This design aspect will stay as-is. Request for guinea pigs ----------------------- I am looking for people with hardcore C++1y metaprogramming needs who will be willing to test the library I come up with (MPL11 or MPL + Fusion merge). I also need to see use cases for the library, so please reply even if you are not willing to test. Roadmap ------- Finish exploring the design space. If it turns out that we can merge the MPL and Fusion, then I'll be working on that for a while. If I find that this is not possible or not a good idea, I'll go back to my initial GSoC planning. In both cases, I hope to have a library in the incubator by the end of the summer. Also, this new roadmap is approved by my mentor. Feel free to reply with questions and/or comments. Regards, Louis [1]: http://ldionne.com/mpl11-cppnow-2014 [2]: http://github.com/ldionne/hana

15 34

Proposal: Boost.Core
by Peter Dimov 04 Jun '14

04 Jun '14

I propose the creation of a new module, Boost.Core, a repository of Boost core utilities. The criteria for inclusion into this module would be that the utility component is (a) simple, (b) used by other Boost libraries, (c) does not depend on any headers outside of Core and Config (and perhaps Assert). Its primary purpose would be to break dependencies. It will not serve as a repository of "this might be useful". Based on the interest so far, I volunteer myself, Glen Fernandes and Andrey Semashev as maintainers. The following utilities are immediate candidates for migration into the new module: - addressof - enable_if - boost/pointee.hpp - boost/indirect_reference.hpp - boost/type.hpp In addition, the following can be duplicated inside to reduce dependencies: - mpl::if_, if_c, eval_if - detail/is_incrementable.hpp - remove_cv and so on.

10 51

Boost 1.56 timeframe
by Jonathan Jones 03 Jun '14

03 Jun '14

Hi folks, Is there a timeframe for the release of Boost 1.56? The current 1.56 page simply states that it's at an early stage in its release cycle (but it has said this for months). http://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_56_0.html I'm asking in the context of Visual Studio 2013. Boost 1.55 is known to have issues with VS2013, which I'm hoping the 1.56 release would address. Sincerely, Jonathan Jones

7 10