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

[parameter] Literate test, and other changes.
by Daniel James 08 Jun '14

08 Jun '14

Hi, Looking at parameter's history there are three groups of unmerged changes: - "literate" tests extracted from the documentation (plus some small documentation changes) - Stephen Kelly's changes removing workarounds for old compilers - a warning fix - https://github.com/boostorg/parameter/commit/b5e57e0024ae51f5e706eff50e8602… I think they're all okay to merge, although I'm not sure about the literate tests, does anyone know why they weren't merged earlier? They don't show up in the test results, although maybe they're not meant to. Daniel

1 1

Newer dependency report
by Peter Dimov 08 Jun '14

08 Jun '14

http://www.pdimov.com/tmp/report-b932921/module-overview.html http://www.pdimov.com/tmp/report-b932921/module-levels.html

1 0

[Fusion] Heterogeneous comparison rationale?
by Louis Dionne 08 Jun '14

08 Jun '14

Dear list, Is there a reason why Fusion does not support comparing objects of different types? For example, the following will trigger a compilation error inside the library because there is no operator==(int, X): struct X { }; assert(make_vector(1, 2) != make_vector(1, X{})); In the context of programming with heterogeneous types, one could reasonably argue that the above should compile and pass the assertion. Of course, then the library can't use operator== to compare objects internally, but that's an implementation detail. So I'm really looking for a rationale for that design decision and/or comments from people about which way they think it should be and why. Regards, Louis Dionne

1 0

clang failing core/detail_iterator_test?
by Peter Dimov 08 Jun '14

08 Jun '14

Does anyone have any idea why Clang doesn't like detail_iterator_test? As an example, http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/BP%20x86_64… ../libs/core/test/detail_iterator_test.cpp:79:76: error: no member named 'iterator_category' in 'boost::detail::iterator_traits<iterator<C, T, D, P, R> >' BOOST_TEST_TRAIT_TRUE((is_same<boost::detail::iterator_traits<It>::iterator_category,C>)); ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ I'm having endless trouble trying to get a version of Clang up and running here (on Windows), as is customary. This: ../libs/core/test/detail_iterator_test.cpp:136:17: error: default initialization of an object of const type 'const T [5]' T const x[ N ]; ^ I know what is about, and I've fixed that already.

4 7

[config][compatibility] limits.hpp documentation
by Daniel James 08 Jun '14

08 Jun '14

I just created a pull request to update the limits.hpp documentation in compatibility. If no one objects I'll merge it soon. But maybe it should be in config since the header is there now.

1 1

Tick: Trait instrospection and concepts library now for C++11
by paul Fultz 08 Jun '14

08 Jun '14

Hi, I've just update the Tick library to support C++11 compilers including support for gcc 4.6: https://github.com/pfultz2/Tick To support gcc 4.6 an additional `TICK_RETURNS` macro was added. So while this can be written for gcc 4.7 or later: TICK_TRAIT(is_incrementable) { template<class T> auto requires_(T&& x) -> TICK_VALID( returns<int>(x++) ); }; This can be written in order to support gcc 4.6: TICK_TRAIT(is_incrementable) { template<class T> auto requires_(T&& x) -> TICK_VALID( TICK_RETURNS(x++, int) ); }; Of course, the macro is optional and only needed to support older compilers. Any other feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Paul

3 4

[modularization] First goal clarification: have a DAG dependency graph?
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 08 Jun '14

08 Jun '14

Hi, I would like what is the first goal of the modularization changes we are doing. IMO, the first one is to have modules that don't have dependency cycles, that is they form a DAG. Reducing the dependencies could be done later on, once we don't have cycles. The next conflicting cycle is Level 3 1/2 mpl - config core predef preprocessor static_assert type_traits utility type_traits - config core mpl preprocessor static_assert typeof utility typeof - config core mpl preprocessor type_traits utility - config core mpl preprocessor static_assert throw_exception type_traits If declval moves from utility to type_traits we break the type_traits->utility dependency. Could we extract *temporally* common_type to a specific module? These break the type_traits -> typeof dependency and the type_traits I say temporary because once all the changes are done to avoid the cycles, we can start looking for better ways to organize the modules preserving always the DAG structure. If we admit these changes we have to resolve this cycle type_traits<=>mpl. We need surely to add every thing that allows to define a trait to either to TypeTraits or to Core without using MPL of course. However in order to see clearer on the dependencies that must be broken to avoid this cycle, could these new file-to-module associations be applied? Best, Vicente

1 0

(no subject)
by Leif Reichert 08 Jun '14

08 Jun '14

1 0

Re: [boost] [pimpl] No documentation for pointer semant
by Dave Gomboc 07 Jun '14

07 Jun '14

[Paul A Bristow]: > I unhappy with a review rigid policy that nothing can be changed during a > review. It isn't always helpful. > > We never accept anything without requiring some changes? > > Can we instead now use git's easy branches to specify a fixed 'master' > branch, but allow the author to update a 'develop' branch as the review > develops? [Edward Diener]: > I believe that changes can be made to a reviewed library during a review > as long as the 'master' branch does not change. After all we want all > reviewers to be looking at the same 'master' branch as the code to be > reviewed. But if the developer wants to make changes to other branches > during the review I think this should be allowed. [Dave Gomboc]: > May I suggest that either the library author or the review manager > ought to, near the commencement of the review, identify a specific > version to be reviewed? This is quite distinct from identifying a > branch name for a conventional branch such as master that is expected > to change frequently even over a two-week period. A specific checkout > is typically identified by a SHA: a branch name such as 'master' is > primarily just an alias to the SHA to which it currently resolves. [Andrey Semashev]: > I think a tag would be a better alternative to a SHA. It's more readable and > GitHub creates a downloadable archive for it so git is not required to review > the library. Sure, using a tag would be great. (I wasn't aware that GitHub had that additional functionality.) Mainly, I have concern that Boost might adopt a procedure whereby committing to master is not permitted during a review. I want to discourage the mindset that changes can't be committed to their logical place (or even at all) just because a review is currently underway, and so tried to show that it is not difficult to avoid such an encumberance. Dave

1 0

[Trac] Adding modules Core, Detail, Sync
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 07 Jun '14

07 Jun '14

Hi, could we create Component entries on the Trac system for Core -> ?? Detail -> ?? Sync -> Andrey Semashev Vicente

2 1