June 2015 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

Dependency report for develop-8fa72a7
by Peter Dimov 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

The latest dependency report, which reflects the new "version 2" type traits, is here: http://pdimov.com/tmp/report-develop-8fa72a7/module-overview.html http://pdimov.com/tmp/report-develop-8fa72a7/module-levels.html http://pdimov.com/tmp/report-develop-8fa72a7/module-weights.html

1 0

[Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May 25th and ends June 7th
by Christophe Henry 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

Dear all, The review of the Metaparse library starts next Monday, May 25th and ends June 7th. Metaparse was written by Abel Sinkovics. Metaparse is a parser generator library for template metaprograms. The purpose of this library is to support the creation of parsers that parse at compile time. This library is intended to be used for embedded domain specific language creation for C++ and can help libraries provide a better interface. It is similar to Boost.Spirit, however while parsers built with Spirit parse at run-time, parsers built with Metaparse parse at compile-time. It makes it possible for library authors to provide an interface that follows the common notation of the problem domain of the library. (eg. SQL queries, grammars, etc written in their common notation instead of similar-looking C++ expressions). For example there is a (yet incomplete) interface for Boost.Spirit that makes it possible to write MPLLIBS_REGEX("^[abcd][3-8]\\.foo$") instead of bos >> set[as_xpr('a')|'b'|'c'|'d'] >> range('3','8') >> '.' >> 'f' >> 'o' >> 'o' >> eos and make the parser built with Metaparse generate the latter expression from the former one. (It can be found here: https://github.com/istvans/mpllibs/tree/master/libs/xlxpressive) Since the library is based on template metaprogramming, the DSLs can be used for type validation as well. This is demonstrated by the type-safe printf implementation ( http://abel.web.elte.hu/mpllibs/safe_printf/index.html) It type-checks the arguments of a printf call based on the format string and has zero runtime overhead compared to unchecked printf. Parsers can be constructed in a declarative manner and (even though this is template metaprogramming based) remain readable. The implementation reflects the grammar it parses (with additional elements for semantic actions). Even though the library requires the parser author to write template metaprograms, the development of parsers is well supported by tools like Metashell and MDB. An important aspect of parsers (built with this library or another one) is error reporting for invalid input. The library offers tools for the parser authors to be able to provide useful error messages in case of parsing errors. Here is an example error report by a parser built with Metaparse (the parser can be found in the Getting Started guide of the library): ..... x__________________PARSING_FAILED__________________x<1, 5, unpaired<1, 1, literal_expected<')'>>> .... It is an error report letting the developer know that a closing paren is missing at line 1, column 5 and the unclosed opening paren is in line 1, column 1. Metaparse can be downloaded from Github: https://github.com/sabel83/mpllibs/tree/master/mpllibs/metaparse And a very complete tutorial: http://abel.web.elte.hu/mpllibs/metaparse/getting_started.html The tutorial also offers the nice feature of a link to metashell for quick-starting trying out the library: http://abel.web.elte.hu/shell/metashell.html Boost.Msm v3 also implements a new compile-time strings based front-end called eUML2 to demonstrate the power of the library and the conciseness and expressiveness it allows. Please have a look at the documentation: https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/boostorg/m… Everybody on this list is invited to participate in this formal review. I hope to see your review of Metaparse, including your vote on acceptance, and I welcome your participation in the ensuing discussions on the Boost developers' mailing list. Please always include in your review a vote as to whether the library should be accepted into Boost. Additionally please consider giving feedback on the following general topics: - What is your evaluation of the design? - What is your evaluation of the implementation? - What is your evaluation of the documentation? - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? - Did you try to use the library? - With what compiler? - Did you have any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Regards, Christophe Review Manager

23 76

Correct spelling of "suppress"
by Alex Henrie 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

Hi, Could you guys take a look at these two pull requests? https://github.com/boostorg/assign/pull/9/files https://github.com/boostorg/iostreams/pull/12/files I thought they would be uncontroversial, but it has been months and they have still not been merged. -Alex

1 0

Boost.Container and tests: why is Boost.Test bypassed
by Thorsten Ottosen 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

Hi Ion, I have a GSOC student writing some containers that fit naturally into Boost.Container. So he tries to do things the way that you have done, which is fine. I do wonder why the tests are written with assertions and not using Boost.Test? Is it a dependency problem or? Thanks -Thorsten

7 12

What would make tool authors happier..
by Rene Rivera 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

Warning.. Some of this may sound contentious at times.. But that's life ;-) There are a number of disparate discussions going on at the moment that can be summarized as: * A tool author suggesting a change (to structure, or process, or something else) that would make writing tools easier and less error prone. * Lots of responses about how such a change would be disruptive to current practices. * Some responses about how such a change is beneficial to the future of Boost, its growth and possible real modular future. * Some more responses about how the tool authors should just account for all the special cases of the current practices and still bring about the vaunted modular future. So I want to summarize some key changes, as I understand them, that I think will make movement towards a better tooling and development future less painful for the minuscule minority of the people who write the tools that aim to bring that future into existence. First the key aspects of the changes are: 1. Normalized and regular directory structure of libraries, tools, and root. 2. Minimal non-library content and structure. 3. Stricter rules and guidelines for library authors to follow regarding the needs of the infrastructure tools. Some of the specific changes some of us have mentioned that touch on the above aspects are.. * Making the combined library headers go into boost-root/include. See separate post from Peter Dimov about this. This touches on #1 as it makes for a user and tool expected location. That is, users are accustomed to looking for a top level include. And having such a location would reduce the documentation and instruction needed to point them away from their intuitive behavior. External tools also expect to find such a directory for a library, which is what a monolithic Boost looks like to tools. Hence it would make it easier to use, incorporate, author, etc tools. * What I've mentioned as "flattening" of libraries. Which touches on #1 and #3 above. This has multiple parts/meanings so let me explain each one separately. First, it means is banning of git sub-modules outside of directly under boost-root/libs and boost-root/tools. Dealing with git sub-modules is difficult enough even when it's just a handful of sub-modules. But dealing with the 130 sub-modules we have now is an insanity inducing experience when there needs to be handling for special locations. Currently the only culprit of this is "libs/numeric". And I understand that it was done this way because that was the old structure converted to the modular git form. But I think it's time to truly abandon the old structures as they are standing in the way of better tools and user experience. As an example of user experience, I once tried to set up my own subset of Boost as a git repo that had all the libraries and tools needed for the documentation toolchain. It was excruciating to manually discover what all those libraries where particularly because of no initially knowing about this aspect of our current sub-modules. Second, it means formalizing and regulating the top level structure of libraries. For the longest time we've had an accepted top level structure. Unfortunately library authors have added to that top level structure. For example to manage "sub-libraries" or "sub-parts" of their library... Which is understandable. But it makes life more difficult for the tools that rely on the structure assertions. For example currently the testing scripts rely on people updating a single listing file at "boost-root/status/Jamfile.v2". When in an ideal world the test tools would be able to automatically discover that information. Practically it means that currently that Jamfile lists 127 test dirs. But a cursory discovery of test dirs goes up to a possible 197. As far as following the top-level library structure.. There are currently 279 files and directories at the library top level that are not in the accepted set (and I'm already excluding things like readmes and changelogs, even though changelogs should be in docs). But do note.. That I'm not suggesting that we immediately ban the old structure. But that we start discussing what are the needs of library authors and that we come up with a consistent and enforced structure that can relied upon by users and tools. Some changes that may be the first time I bring them up.. * Remove as much as possible from boost-root. This is mostly #2 above. First, I would like to remove the "boost-root/more" directory. Stuff in it are docs of various kinds and should be placed in "boost-root/doc", in the website, in tool docs, or in library docs. While doing that I'm sure we will likely also rewrite/clean-up those documents to better reflect the present. Second, I would like to move as many of the root build files to a "boost-root/build" directory. Ideally they would all be moved but it may not be possible, and practical, to do so. This would mirror the general top-level structure and hence make it a bit more intuitive for new authors and users to find. Third, I would like to clean up the various CSS and HTML sources at the root to either a smaller number (do we really need index.htm *and* index.html?), or to the doc directory. I know.. This isn't exactly in the vein of what makes it easier for tool developers. But it does make it easier for users to initially navigate (because there's less noise for them to look at). Last, I would like to re/move the "boost-root/status" directory. Two options I'm considering are moving to be "boost-root/test" to match the usual name for testing scripts. Or removing it and replacing it logic in the regression tools that is equivalent (i.e. move the functionality to the separate regression git repo). I believe that all those changes will help in moving us toward what I'm starting to call a "comprehensive" Boost release. Such a release would not follow the monolithic structure we currently have of needing the big include directory. But instead would be a plain collection of the individual libraries and tools that users can enable/install from the comprehensive package they download. Or possibly use directly if they add the individual libraries to their project search (and obviously build for the ones that need it). Such a "comprehensive" release would make the release process, and the tools driving it, a much simpler process and almost certainly increase the frequency of comprehensive release (possibly even to an almost weekly or daily occurrence). Last note.. It's never too late to fix problems even if there's work needed to adjust to the fixes. After all, programmers are accustomed to change. We deal with it and move on. So if we can make changes that reduce our future pain, we should do those changes. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

9 38

[testing][regression] Heads up: compilation warnings are available for passing tests.
by Adam Wulkiewicz 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

Hi, For passing tests which are expected to pass, if warnings are generated during the compilation they can be seen after clicking on the "pass" link. If the link isn't there it means that there were no warnings. I hope it will allow us to improve the quality of the libraries even more. Regards, Adam

4 10

[winapi] Problem with the latest clang on Windows
by Edward Diener 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

Updates to clang on Windows have broken the use of clang with the [winapi] library. I do not know if this has occurred in the past but it seems to have occurred recently when I build the latest clang from source and use it on Windows to compile build Boost libraries which use the internal winapi library. Preprocessing clang and gcc output for a given call in the Boost winapi library and in the corresponding mingw windows.h shows that both compilers view the same source but treat them differently. As an example let's look at the GetSystemTimeAsFileTime call. The preprocessed source for both clang and gcc shows: In the Boost winapi it is: __attribute__((dllimport)) void __attribute__((__stdcall__)) GetSystemTimeAsFileTime(FILETIME_* lpFileTime); In the mingw/gcc windows.h it is: void __attribute__((__stdcall__)) GetSystemTimeAsFileTime(LPFILETIME); where the FILETIME_ and LPFILETIME are the same. When gcc sees these two declarations in the two different headers it says everything is OK. When clang sees these two declarations in the two different headers it gives an error: In file included from test_winapi.cpp:9: In file included from /mingw/include\windows.h:62: /mingw/include\winbase.h:1397:24: error: conflicting types for 'GetSystemTimeAsFileTime' WINBASEAPI void WINAPI GetSystemTimeAsFileTime(LPFILETIME); ^ ..\..\..\boost/detail/winapi/time.hpp:70:9: note: previous declaration is here GetSystemTimeAsFileTime(FILETIME_* lpFileTime); ^ For this line in boost/detail/winapi/time.hpp __declspec(dllimport) void WINAPI GetSystemTimeAsFileTime(FILETIME_* lpFileTime); It seems like the fix for clang is to leave out the __declspec(dllimport) portion of all these Boost winapi calls while leaving it in for everybody else. I am discussing this on the clang developers mailing list but it seems like they are pretty adamant that if they see __attribute__((dllimport)) in from of a function declaration and do not see it in front of another function declaration, despite the rest of the signatire being the same, the two declarations are not the same function being declared and therefore an error because of ODR.

7 28

[hana]missing link on http://ldionne.com/hana/index.html#tutorial-integral
by Larry Evans 07 Jun '15

07 Jun '15

The link with name: boost::hana::literals takes my browser to: http://ldionne.com/hana/namespaceboost_1_1hana_1_1literals.html which my browser (firefox) displays with: Louis Dionne Programming and Categories, Oh My! 404: Page not found

2 3

[metaparse] performance comparisons?
by Peter Dimov 07 Jun '15

07 Jun '15

Abel, After looking at Metaparse, I inquired on the c++std-ext list as to whether user-defined operators can create char packs from integer or floating point literals, but not from string literals, as this would have made the MPLLIBS_STRING macro unnecessary. As it turns out, there has been such a proposal, N3599: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3599.html later referenced by two competing proposals for compile-time string literals, N4121 and N4236: https://isocpp.org/files/papers/n4121.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4236.html N3599 has been however rejected, as the committee apparently feels that representing compile-time strings as char packs is inefficient and impractical, and prefers constexpr char arrays. I cited Metaparse as an argument that char packs are quite obviously practical if they work in practice, and was asked whether measurement data has been presented as part of the formal review, perhaps compared to alternatives. I'm not aware of any alternatives to Metaparse though, so this question may be hard to answer. :-) Either way, the only performance data I see is http://abel.web.elte.hu/mpllibs/metaparse/performance.html which seems rather slim. Is there any other? (On an unrelated note, the cpp-next.com link is dead, but archive.org still has it at http://web.archive.org/web/20140217173026/http://cpp-next.com/archive/2012/…)

5 19

Boost documentation with ability for users to post comments
by Krzysztof Jusiak 06 Jun '15

06 Jun '15

Hi, Recently I come across presentation from CppCon 2015 (Boost 2.0 by Robert Ramey). One of the points mentioned was related to adding possibility to allow users to post comments on the documentation pages. I have recently added such functionality to Boost.DI documentation using https://disqus.com service. It allows you to have comments on each page. It's also really easy to do add it to qbk based documentation: 1. Create an account on disqus service and add your website (consider allowing anonymous posts in settings) 2. Generate html doc using boost quickbook as usual 3. Add comments with simple script: find html -iname "*.html" | xargs sed -i -e '/<\/body>/{r comments.html' -e 'd}' -e 's/<\/html>/<\/body><\/html>/' where comments.html content is taken from disqus service -> https://github.com/krzysztof-jusiak/di/blob/cpp14/doc/comments.html 4. Deploy and enjoy users being able to add/read comments.... (on the bottom of each page) That's all, you can try it out and post, preferably useful feedback, on Boost.DI documentation website: http://krzysztof-jusiak.github.io/di/cpp14/boost/libs/di/doc/html/ Cheers, Kris

8 13