March 2020 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

Adding my sorting algorithm, ska_sort, to boost, attempt 2
by Malte Skarupke 24 Nov '21

24 Nov '21

Hi everyone, I started a discussion about this in October, but at the time the maintainer of the sort library was busy, then I was busy, so now it's January... I wrote a generalized version of radix sort a couple years ago and gave a talk about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqs87a_7zxw I would like to get a new version of that sorting algorithm into boost. It's faster than what I showed several years ago. It's also even more general and has a new interface that should be easier to extend. I uploaded the code here: https://github.com/skarupke/sort/tree/master The documentation is also already updated with new benchmark results. Let me know what's required to get this into boost. Would you like this in the form of a pull request? One of the big things that probably needs review is the interface, since radix sorting works differently than comparison based sorting. For most normal uses you just need to provide a sort key, but more complicated cases can get more complicated. I tried very hard to make everything easy, but I'd also be curious if others can come up with better ways of doing the interface. Thanks, Malte -- Malte Skarupke malteskarupke(a)fastmail.fm

8 10

Optional library
by anshu khare 27 May '20

27 May '20

Hi mentors I was going through the optional library of boost. I was facing some problem in understanding the code base. In lines from 94 to 97 in optional.hpp, the code is as follows: struct in_place_init_if_t { Struct init_tag{}; explicit in_place_init_if_t(init_tag) {} //not able to understand this line }; I understand that we are creating a structure in_place_init_if_t and inside that we are creating another structure init_tag and then we are calling the constructor of in_place_init_if_t. But I am not able to understand that what does it the constructor do when we pass init_tag as an argument to it. Is it same as we are creating a structure Car and then creating another structure wheels inside it and passing wheels as an argument to the constructor of car as follows: struct car { Struct wheels{}; explicit car(wheels) {} //not able to understand this line }; Could you please tell what is the significance of passing wheels as an argument in this counter example?

2 1

[Range] Transform in place
by Frederick Gotham 11 May '20

11 May '20

Earlier today I wrote the following two lines of code: auto const my_range = v | boost::adaptors::sliced(1,15) | boost::adaptors::strided(2); boost::range::transform( my_range, my_range.begin(), std::bit_not<uint8_t>() ); However it would have been nice as a one-liner: boost::range::transform( v | boost::adaptors::sliced(1,15) | boost::adaptors::strided(2), std::bit_not<uint8_t>() ); Why isn't there a form of "range::transform" that can transform in place (and therefore takes exactly two arguments)?

3 2

Embarcadero C++ and Boost libraries
by Edward Diener 01 May '20

01 May '20

Embarcardero ( formerly Codegear, formerly Borland ) has had for about five years C++ compilers based on clang, along with the venerable bcc32, which is the Borland compiler of old through a number of transformations. The clang-based Windows compilers are bcc32c/bcc32x for 32-bit development and bcc64 for 64-bit development. The only difference between bcc32c and bcc32x is that the former takes the same command line flags as their legacy bcc32 compiler while the latter, like bcc64, takes clang command line flags. The clang-based C++ compilers are based on clang-5.0, and use the Dinkumware library. The clang based compilers still predefine __BORLANDC__ and __CODEGEARC__ but also predefine __clang__. The latter is the way to distinguish in preprocessor code between the bcc32 compiler and the clang-based compilers. Despite numerous workarounds in Boost code based on the predefined macros __BORLANDC__ and __CODEGEARC__ the bcc32 compiler, not being very C++ compliant even at the C++98/C++03 level at which it operates, has not really worked for Boost since about Boost 1.39. It is useless for modern day Boost. Therefore I have made efforts, in contact with some Embarcadero C++ representatives, to integrate the clang-based compilers into Boost, especially since there is a free non-commercial offering by Embarcadero called C++ Builder Community Edition at https://www.embarcadero.com/products/cbuilder/starter which any Boost developer could use to test these compilers if they wished. I am doing this in the hopes that this may become effective for Boost 1.74.0. Doing this involves: 1) Creating an embarcadero.jam toolset, based on the clang-linux.jam toolset, which supports bcc32x and bcc64. Updating the borland.jam toolset to also support bcc32c. I have done these and the PR has been merged to 'develop' on Boost Build. 2) Updating Boost Config to support the clang-based compilers. I have done this and the PR has been merged to 'develop' on Boost Config. 3) In the update to Boost Config, I have created these macros: a) BOOST_BORLANDC = __BORLANDC__ with __clang__ not defined b) BOOST_CODEGEARC = __CODEGEARC__ with __clang__ not defined c) BOOST_EMBTC = Embarcadero C++ compilers with __clang__ defined Therefore what is really needed in Boost libraries is to change all the code which currently uses __BORLANDC__ to BOOST_BORLANDC and all the code which uses __CODEGEARC__ to BOOST_CODEGEARC when Boost config has been included. When in the rarer case that Boost config has not been included, then __BORLANDC__ logic becomes __BORLANDC__ and !__clang__ and __CODEGEARC__ logic becomes __CODEGEARC__ and !__clang__. I am workiog on doing this for the numerous Boost libraries with workarounds nased on __BORLANDC__ and __CODEGEARC__ in Boost code, and will create PRs for those libraries. I only ask that library maintainers will merge the PRs I create once they have passed their CI tests, since the PRs are almost all just simple transformations regarding the __BORLANDC__ and __CODEGEARC__ in the code. If any library maintainer wants to so this on their own in the 'develop' branch it would be appreciated. Further points: The Embarcadero C++ clang-based compilers are not as good as clang itself, which is at release 9, gcc, or vc++. But they are good enough for the majority of Boost code. The Embarcadero C++ clang-based compilers support only C++17. The documentation implies that they also support C++11 and C++14 but that is not so. But since Boost libraries written for a C++ standard level are supposed to work flawlessly at a higher level this is no impediment for C++ Builder programmers using the Embarcadero C++ compilers in current Boost. I have reported a number of bugs, based on my Boost testing, for the Embarcadero C++ compilers to Embarcadero themselves in their bug reporting system. I believe that any registered user of their free community edition can report bugs to Embarcadero C++ at their bug reporting system at https://quality.embarcadero.com. Hopefully these reports will improve the compilers. It would really be nice, once the Embarcadero C++ clang-based compilers are integrated into current Boost, if regression testers could test their compilers. I will try to do so myself if I have the time and resources. I have discussed this with some Embarcadero C++ representatives about adding the Embarcadero clang-based C++ compilers to one or more CI testing services, but currently there are not any which support them of which I know. Besides the clang-based Windows compiler Embarcadero also has clang-based C++ compilers for 32-bit and 64-bit iOS ( Apple ) and for Android ( Google ). The code in Boost Config distinguishes between these environments, if necessary, with further macros based off of the mnemonic BOOST_EMBTC. It would be nice to add these configurations to embarcadero.jam once the rest of the work is done. But I have no idea how to test any of these other compilers as they are not part of the Windows based Embarcardero C++ Builder Community Edition.

2 4

Re: [boost] [review][STLInterfaces] STLInterfaces review results (ready for merge)
by Barrett Adair 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 2:31 AM Barrett Adair <barrettellisadair(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Many thanks are owed to all who participated in the formal review of Zach Laine's STLInterfaces library, especially during this busy holiday season: > > * Hadriel Kaplan - ACCEPT > * Andreas Wass - ACCEPT > * Rainer Deyke - ACCEPT > * Arthur Gruzauskas - ACCEPT > * Krystian Stasiowski - ACCEPT > * Daniela Engert - CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT > * Gavin Lambert - Technical comments > > (snip) > > The reviews clearly demonstrate a consensus. Accordingly, I'm pleased to announce that STLInterfaces is CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED as a Boost library. > > Conditions for acceptance: > 1. Remove optional dependency on cmcstl2 (issue #27) > 2. Add Boost license comments to all files, including appveyor.yml, .travis.yml, README.md, */CMakeLists.txt (issue #26) > 3. Support Boost.Build (issue #25) > 4. Replace googletest with Boost equivalent (issue #24) > 5. Remove usage of non-existent v2_dtl members in container_interface.hpp (issue #22) > 6. Include <tuple> for std::tie usage in C++14 mode (issue #21) > 7. Fix dangling parens in container_inteface.hpp:731 (issue #20) > 8. Make Concepts usage C++20-conformant (issue #13) > 9. Remove the destructor in container_interface (issue #12) > 10. Add tests for non-copyable value types (issue #30) > > (snip) I've confirmed that STLInterfaces (https://github.com/tzlaine/stl_interfaces) has met the conditions for acceptance. Review wizards, please reply with any objections. Merge ticket here: https://github.com/boostorg/admin/issues/174 Thanks, Barrett

4 5

MySQL ASIO library
by Ruben Perez 22 Apr '20

22 Apr '20

Hi all, I have been writing an ASIO-based client for MySQL, trying to mimic what Beast is to HTTP. It currently supports SQL queries and prepared statements. It can be viewed here: https://github.com/anarthal/mysql-asio Do you guys think this has the potential to be useful or become part of Boost long term? Any feedback is very welcome. Thanks, Ruben (Anarthal).

6 12

Re: [boost] MySQL ASIO library
by Andrey Semashev 14 Apr '20

14 Apr '20

[Sending this reply to list as opposed to personal email] On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 3:39 PM Richard Hodges <hodges.r(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 13:25, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 1:50 PM Richard Hodges via Boost >> <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Why just MySQL? >> > >> > Getting something useful released is more important than getting something >> > perfect released. >> > >> > If Ruben has a ready-to-go solution for MySQL, why not make it available to >> > users? >> >> Making it available to users is not the same as making it part of >> Boost. Boost is known for general purpose libraries, as well as more >> domain-focused solutions, but it is not a place for wrappers around >> specific other libraries. Let alone, when the said libraries already >> have C/C++ API. > > Boost also has mpi, regex, asio::ssl and python. What are these if not wrappers around common c libraries? I'm not sure about Boost.MPI, but I thought it was not a wrapper of a single library, but of a standard API that can be implemented by different libraries. Boost.Regex is not a wrapper at all; it implements regular expressions from scratch. asio::ssl is not a library but a plugin for Boost.ASIO that provides one small piece of functionality compared to the rest of the library. Boost.Python is probably closest to an exception, although it is a binding to another language (not a library), which arguably only has one C API and implementation. Yes, there is CPython, but I don't believe it offers a C API. >> > It can always be complemented or extended with Oracle, SQLite, ODBC etc etc >> > later. >> >> If the proposed library offers a stable and flexible API that can be >> backed by multiple implementations then by all means - that would be a >> very interesting proposal indeed. But the author has to demonstrate >> that the proposed user API can in fact be supported by more than one >> backend, so at least two backends need to be presented, and preferably >> with guidelines and infrastructure for adding more. > > Mpi, regex and python would dispute this arbitrary restriction. I don't think so, as per above. > Boost suffers from a lack of contribution. Is there any value in making contribution difficult? I don't think the amount of contributions by itself is the goal. There has to be value associated with the contribution. I just don't think a C++ wrapper of a specific library has enough value.

11 28

boost [math] excessive warnings via [lexical_cast] from [date_time] (and others) for clang 3.4?
by Jeff Garland 08 Apr '20

08 Apr '20

In the regression tables the following warnings are coming out of math config. I'm trying to understand what this means given that 1) the tests compile and execute fine, 2) the deadline is up, and 3) several of the cases are compiled in c++11 mode (is it pre conformance bc it's clang3.4?). I've seen this warning in other places that include lexical_cast as well. So sure I could go and define the macro to quiet this, but seems like that should be done closest to the source. In other words maybe math should only tell us that in headers that have a real issue? Or will this soon be a real issue? ../boost/math/tools/config.hpp:42:9: warning: CAUTION: One or more C++11 features were found to be unavailable [-W#pragma-messages] ../boost/math/tools/config.hpp:43:9: warning: CAUTION: Compiling Boost.Math in pre-C++11 conformance modes is now deprecated and will be removed from March 2021. [-W#pragma-messages] ../boost/math/tools/config.hpp:44:9: warning: CAUTION: Define BOOST_MATH_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_03_WARNING to suppress this message. [-W#pragma-messages] Full examples https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/date_time.html https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/output/teeks99-dkr-dc3-4-98…

5 23

[Performance of circular_buffer vs Queue][Multithreading may be broken]
by Jan Hafer 04 Apr '20

04 Apr '20

Dear Boost developer, I found the circular buffer to be slower than std::queue for multithreading except in the case of a single thread (where it is notably faster). I am using resize() to have the expected size filled as in vector. Is this behavior expected or documented anywhere? What kind of speedup is to be expected against the std::queue implementation? If there is none, then what is the purpose of circular buffer? I do also have broken code on a multithreaded application that worked fine before. I do pass the circular buffer as reference via functions from file scope, which in combination with the threads (initially starting elsewhere) somehow broke the code. Do you do regular benchmarks against other implementations? I dont see linked graphs on your homepage. Regards, Jan

7 10

[gil] Review of move assignment operator for image class
by Mateusz Loskot 02 Apr '20

02 Apr '20

Hi, We're adding move semantics to some of GIL classes [1] and we'd like to receive feedback on the move-assignment operator for the image class [2] (copied below) that we've worked out so far if there are any major blunders to correct or gaps to fill for C++11 compliant implementation: image& operator=(image&& img) { if (this == std::addressof(img)) return *this; auto const exchange_memory = [](image& lhs, image& rhs) { lhs._memory = boost::exchange(rhs._memory, nullptr); lhs._align_in_bytes = boost::exchange(rhs._align_in_bytes, 0); lhs._allocated_bytes = boost::exchange(rhs._allocated_bytes, 0); lhs._view = boost::exchange(rhs._view, image::view_t{}); }; constexpr bool pocma = std::allocator_traits<Alloc>::propagate_on_container_move_assignment::value; if (pocma) { // non-sticky allocator, can adopt the memory, fast destruct_pixels(this->_view); this->deallocate(); this->_alloc = img._alloc; exchange_memory(*this, img); } else if (_alloc == img._alloc) { // allocator stuck to the rhs, but it's equivalent of ours, we can still adopt the memory destruct_pixels(_view); this->deallocate(); exchange_memory(*this, img); } else { // cannot propagate the allocator and cannot adopt the memory if (img._memory) { allocate_and_copy(img.dimensions(), img._view); destruct_pixels(img._view); img.deallocate(); img._view = image::view_t{}; } else { destruct_pixels(this->_view); this->deallocate(); this->_view = view_t{}; } } return *this; } One thing that is still missing is the noexcept with expression evaluated based on something like this template <class _Alloc> using is_noexcept = std::conditional_t < std::allocator_traits<_Alloc>::is_always_equal::value, _Equal_allocators, typename std::allocator_traits<_Alloc>::propagate_on_container_move_assignment::type >; but we there is no is_always_equal in C++11, so there are gaps to fill. Any comments are appreciated. [1] https://github.com/boostorg/gil/pull/457/ [2] https://github.com/boostorg/gil/blob/7d8df1c105e81070e30ef68ea7abb8e39111d6… Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

1 1

Request to review my GSoc Proposal[Boost multiprecision
by suyashtava 01 Apr '20

01 Apr '20

Dear Sir/Ma'am, It would be great if you could review my GSOC proposal for [Boost multiprecision]: New Big-Double Backend Types Doc link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xznSxg1XcAiQMnVXSMG_NwxuUeGmkI5iXhabSXe… I deeply regret and apologize for the late submission, but I request you to review it once as it will surely help me to update it in required ways. With regards Suyash Srivastava IIT(ISM) Dhanbad -- Sent from: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Dev-f2600599.html

5 6

[GSoC2020][Boost.Real] Greeting
by Firmin Martin 01 Apr '20

01 Apr '20

Hi, Boost community! This mail is not intended to serve as a proposal review (it's too late obviously). Instead, I would want to greet my potential mentors and possible collaborators. Anyway, whether or not my proposal is retained, I will probably still contribute after GSoC 2020 since I've got familiar enough to the codebase by dint of reading blog posts, references and code sources. I made a small PR involving BBP formula to compute the n-th binary digit of pi and already submitted my final proposal to GSoC. Best regards, Firmin

2 1

Download links all broken?
by John Maddock 31 Mar '20

31 Mar '20

All the download links from www.boost.org appear to be currently broken - which is to say no one can download Boost right now. Ideas or fixes anyone? Thanks, John. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

10 21

[test][program_options] Avoid deprecated bind placeholders in global namespace
by Mateusz Loskot 31 Mar '20

31 Mar '20

Hi, I have a shy request to maintainers of boostorg/test and boostorg/program_options Would it be possible to merge these trivial patch to both: https://github.com/boostorg/test/pull/259 https://github.com/boostorg/program_options/pull/92 Thanks in advance. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

2 2

Proposal Review
by Kishan shukla 31 Mar '20

31 Mar '20

Hello everyone, I have prepared the draft proposal for the boost.Real project. It involves adding new mathematical functions and operators into the library. I have also planned on optimizing a few algorithms and addressing previously unresolved issues. The proposal is the result of my discussion with my mentor Damian Vicino. Sorry for being late. Please review the proposal and provide your valuable feedback. Proposal link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oXAaaiqgtC2bTCfADPwXUY4ItYw-C8EMOLr2Bhu… Regards, Kishan Shukla

2 2

GSoC 2020
by Sachin Saw 31 Mar '20

31 Mar '20

Dear Developers, I am Sachin, a third year undergraduate student at Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, I have been using C++ for around three years and have a good experience in it. I like to contribute to boost on Boost.Geometry during GSoC’20. I went through https://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/page/jise/2012/201205_10.pdf and found a great explanation of algorithm during GSoC period I would like to work on above algorithm (in the link) and concave hull using k-nearest neighbours approach so that one would act as a test for other. If would love to have suggestion from you Thanks,

2 3

[gsoc20] Proposal review for Boost.Real
by Vikram Chundawat 31 Mar '20

31 Mar '20

Hello everyone, I have prepared my draft proposal for Boost.Real project on improving the base, adding new number types and adding a method to calculate powers. Here is the link to the proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Hy87Ok7UTzqPvzD35BkrlL-Sx4G8HfSCzchwYa… I have been in touch with this project's potential mentor Damian Vicino and this proposal is the result of my discussion with him. Please kindly provide your valuable feedback on the proposal. Thank you Regards Vikram Singh Chundawat

2 2

[gsoc20]Proposal for general robust predicates for Boost.Geometry
by Tinko Bartels 30 Mar '20

30 Mar '20

Hello Boost-Community, I have prepared a draft proposal for general robust predicates for Boost.Geometry. The ideas are described in more detail in the proposal, but I will briefly describe them here: A number of geometric algorithms, such as the triangulation of a point set, employ geometric predicates (implemented as strategies in Boost.Geometry). One example for such a predicate is the 2d orientation test, which, given three points p1, p2, p3, determines whether p3 lies on the left or right side of the line segment that goes through p1 and p2. Using floating-point arithmetics to answer that question can lead to incorrect and ultimately inconsistent results that may cause the algorithm that employs the predicate to produce nonsensical results or crash entirely for certain inputs. Using algorithms for exact floating-point arithmetics combined with some considerations regarding forward error analysis, a complicated method can be implemented that evaluates such predicates robustly and only adaptively increases the precision if necessary to avoid expensive high precision computations whenever possible. I propose a general, automated approach that generates such robust, adaptive predicates from arbitrary arithmetic expressions. Currently, Boost.Geometry has robust adaptive predicates for the 2d orientation and the 2d incircle test. This work would enable us to easily extend this to 3d orientation, 3d insphere, and generally all predicates that can be evaluated by determining the sign of a polynomial. I want to present my proposal for review publicly now: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19zH9QuSSNWAHm1DP5poxbRxcMXlzRVWfL5Wslbe… Kind regards Tinko Bartels -- Sent from: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Dev-f2600599.html

3 3

[cmake][array][vs] Trying develop and test a single library
by Mateusz Loskot 30 Mar '20

30 Mar '20

Hi, I'm learning about the boostorg/cmake infrastructure offered by Peter. I picked Boost.Array as a library with simple build setup. I replaced the existing (hand-rolled?) CMakeLists.txt files with the generated ones: b2 tools\boostdep\build dist\bin\boostdep.exe --cmake array Then, learning form boostorg/cmake itself how to use it https://github.com/boostorg/cmake/blob/develop/.travis.yml#L228 cd BOOST_ROOT mkdir __build__ && cd __build__ cmake -DBOOST_ENABLE_CMAKE=1 -DBoost_VERBOSE=ON -DBOOST_INCLUDE_LIBRARIES=array .. cmake --build . ctest --output-on-failure -R boost_array Visual Studio solution is nicely generated, all expected .vcxproj files too, but, AFAICT, neither the last two commands nor these do anything: cmake --build . --config Release cmake --build . --config Debug I loaded the Boost.sln in VS 2019 and Build > Build Solution worked. I also noticed this 'unusual' project-as-target called check. I'm back in the CLI mode and run: cmake --build . --target check this time all the tests build and run. Interestingly, if I feed the ctest with the build configuration, then it also builds the tests, and runs them too, of course: ctest --output-on-failure -R boost_array -C Release ctest --output-on-failure -R boost_array -C Debug Is this `cmake --build .` doing nothing specific Boost.CMake? Is that `check` target supposed to be used explicitly? Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

4 8

FW: Request to review my GSoC proposal[Boost multiprecision]
by Kindly review GSOC Proposal [Boost multiprecision]: New Big-Double Backend Types 30 Mar '20

30 Mar '20

Sent from [1]Mail for Windows 10 From: [2]Kindly review GSOC Proposal [Boost multiprecision]: New Big-Double Backend Types Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:14 PM To: [3]boost(a)lists.boost.org Subject: Request to review my GSoC proposal[Boost multiprecision] Dear Sir/Ma'am, It would be great if you coul review my GSOC proposal for [Boost multiprecision]: New Big-Double Backend Types Doc link: [4]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xznSxg1XcAiQMnVXSMG_NwxuUe GmkI5iXhabSXe_WuQ/edit?usp=sharing I deeply regret and apologize for the late submission, but I request you to review it once as it will surely help me to update it in required ways. With regards Suyash Srivastava IIT(ISM) Dhanbad Sent from [5]Mail for Windows 10 References 1. https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 2. mailto:suyash.17je003210@cse.iitism.ac.in 3. mailto:boost@lists.boost.org 4. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xznSxg1XcAiQMnVXSMG_NwxuUeGmkI5iXhabSXe… 5. https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986

1 0

feedback on litpton-tarjan separator
by Jeff Linahan 30 Mar '20

30 Mar '20

Hello BGL users, after 5 years I'm almost ready to start writing documentation for my lipton-tarjan planar separator algorithm and finally submit my first implementation for formal peer review for inclusion in BGL. But one last question I have is feedback on how people would like the public interface for how a function like this will work (especially the template part which I'm not as good at). The internals will be easier to change as I continue to develop the implementation. This is essentially what I have now: struct Partition { std::set<vertex_t> a, b, c; }; Partition lipton_tarjan_separator(boost::adjacency_list<boost::vecS, boost::vecS, boost::undirectedS, boost::property<boost::vertex_index_t, uint>, boost::property<boost::edge_index_t, uint>> const&); I'd like to make it more generic eventually, but is that good enough for inclusion in BGL as is? Full code here: https://github.com/jeffythedragonslayer/lipton-tarjan Thanks, Jeff

1 1

Google Code Summer Challenge
by Calvin Green 30 Mar '20

30 Mar '20

Dear Boost C++, Hello, my name is Calvin Green Jr. I am a sophomore Computer Science major from Chicago, IL. I was emailing you to see if you can send me your guy's Google Challenge mentor's emails or assign me to one for the Summer challenge. Sincerely, Calvin Green

2 1

[GSoC 2020] Extraordinary circumstances and early birds
by madhur4127 29 Mar '20

29 Mar '20

Hi Boost Community, I am Madhur, an active contributor to Boost.Multiprecision. I am from India and am observing that summer internships (for students in the penultimate year) are being canceled because of COVID-19. This is a huge loss to brilliant and enthusiastic students as they will not be able to gain experience. This could be an opportunity for Boost to mentor these students who don't have prior experience with open source or with a rich C++ background. If a student is ready to devote himself/herself then I guess there's enough time to learn (till Jun 1) about C++/Project to get things rolling. > FYI, you are late. Mateusz posted in other thread about the student being late (as of today) but the GSoC application deadline is due March 31, which I would wholeheartedly agree in case of normal circumstances. The point I'm trying to make here is that in these extraordinary circumstances: - should Boost neglect the "early bird" and treat all applicants equally? - should Boost compensate for the lack of work samples with the history of the student (like academic records, academic projects, research papers)? - should Boost consider other factors too while selecting the student this year like the education level (seniority level: 4th/5th year of study or PhD)? For example, if a student had taken a course in numerical algorithms/computational algorithms then that applicant's insights could be beneficial to Boost.Multiprecision than other applicants. If a student performs well in the competency test then it indicates that the student would do the job and I think the selection criteria should be tweaked so as to consider that students who lost internships and otherwise who could be a great value to the library (even for a short time - GSoC) don't get neglected. Well, these are my views as a student. Eagerly waiting for your thoughts! Thank you for having time to read this unusually long message :) -- Sent from: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Dev-f2600599.html

7 7

[GSoC20] Seeking mentor
by Martin Carrasco Castaneda 29 Mar '20

29 Mar '20

Hello, I am seeking a mentor for the GSoC program for this year. I have some experience with DSP and just submitted a very basic PR with a filter implementation. I find this topic very interesting and have some general ideas for available mentors. I'd like to work in implementing features for deblurring such as the Weigner filter or the Least Square filtering. I am also interested in working in feature extraction filters such as the Hough transform or related subjects. I am pretty much open to any subject relating to GIL. Thanks for the responses in advance, Regard, Martin -- La información contenida en este e-mail y sus anexos es confidencial, privilegiada y está dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario, en consecuencia, solo puede ser utilizada por aquel. Si usted no es el destinatario original, no deberá examinar, usar, copiar o distribuir este mensaje o la información que contiene. Si lo recibe por error, por favor reenvíelo a la persona que se lo envió y elimínelo. Cualquier retención o uso total o parcial no autorizada de este mensaje está estrictamente prohibida y sancionada por ley.

2 1

[gil][GSoC20] Proposal review
by Laxmikant Suryavanshi 29 Mar '20

29 Mar '20

Hi Boost Community, I have prepared a proposal for GSoC-2020 for Boost.GIL project `Implementation of Image Processing Algorithms`. I would like to review it and hear comments from you. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qSYC_94ia28xutmW_qrC3pcSXJ8opfdxW514xRF…

2 2