June 2022 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
by Jon Kalb 13 Aug '24

13 Aug '24

The libraries produced by the Boost community have had a greater impact on the way that the C++ community writes code than any other library implementation. The focus of the Boost community will always be on the libraries, but it is undeniable that we are dependent on and often limited by the infrastructure of our trade. Years ago, the move to Git was contentious; yet, it was required to improve development. In a similar vein our build system has become an impediment for many developers and users, existing and prospective. Therefore, we, the Steering Committee, announce to the Boost community our desire and intent to move Boost’s build system to CMake for users and developers alike. We are soliciting comments and proposals from the community to guide the process and the goals. Our desire is that the community can come to consensus by the end of the calendar year with a vision of supporting users and developers. We understand that the actual process of achieving the end goal will be long, time consuming, and not without its share of conflict. We also recognize that the Boost community is comprised of bright and passionate individuals that are eager to get involved and help get work done. The members of the Steering Committee have been encouraged by the discussions and activity surrounding CMake on the mailing lists over the years and know that many people have voiced visions. We hope that each of you rejoins the discussion to support this initiative and contributes to the common goal of improving Boost’s integration into the broader C++ ecosystem. For the Boost Steering Committee, Jon Kalb, Chair jonkalb(a)boost.org

49 199

Boost Governance?
by René Ferdinand Rivera Morell 09 Aug '24

09 Aug '24

A disclaimer: I write this solely as a Boost Library author. And not in any other capacity or representing any other interest. It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference? Did you know that switch happened? Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers? Do you know when that election happened? Do you know who got elected? Do you know how they were selected? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what their bylaws are? Do you know their financials? More importantly: Did you answer "no" to any of those questions? As a library author, I can say I definitely answered no to many of those questions. This is a problem. As authors, without asking, we should know those answers from the organization that governs our work. We should have input into how that organization governs. In other words, we deserve open and transparent governance; not the closed and opaque status quo. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

10 9

Library proposal - indexed_array
by Julien Blanc 12 Oct '23

12 Oct '23

Hi, I've written and released a (rather small) library which allows defining arrays with arbitrary index mechanisms (hence the name, indexed_array). This especially allows indexing with scoped enums, use non zero-starting indexes, or use sparse indexes. This is not a view, but an array in the sense that it owns the data, and provides the same guarantees and functionalities as std::array, such as triviality propagation, being able to reside in read-only program sections, etc. It also supports multidimensional indexing, and provides an indexed_span template class to access lower dimension content (which can be used outside indexed_array). Finally, it provides an opt-in safer way to initialize the array content, which is especially useful when using complex and/or changing indexing schemes (like based on externally generated files). The library is available here: https://github.com/Julien-Blanc-tgcm/indexed_array And the doc is here: https://julien-blanc-tgcm.github.io/indexed_array/ It requires C++17 and mp11, and has first-class support for describe-d enums. If there is some interest, i'd like to propose it for inclusion in boost. So i'm looking for people who would endorse it. Thanks and best regards, Julien

8 24

Boost.Text is looking for a (mini-)review manager
by Zach Laine 07 Dec '22

07 Dec '22

I've made all the recommended changes to Boost.Text that came up in the review. Glen, the previous review manager, recommended a mini review of Boost.Text once I'd made those changes. If you'd like to manage the mini-review, please let me know. For everyone, including potential reviewers and review managers, here are the major changes: * All the specific review feedback issues have been addressed. * The string layer is now gone. * The text layer got a major re-work. It is now a set of template-based adaptors (basic_text<>, vs. a text typedef. etc.), which lets everyone get what they want. You can change the underlying storage type (including whatever allocator you prefer), select UTF-8 or UTF-16, and change the normalization form. Glen recommended I drop this layer, but the library is way less useful without this stuff, and these changes address all the concerns raised about the text layer in the review. The updated docs can be found here: https://tzlaine.github.io/text/doc/html/index.html Oh yeah, and I added concept constraints to the whole library when you build in C++20 mode. Zach

17 46

Boost.URL review planned for 13-22 August 2022
by Mateusz Loskot 22 Aug '22

22 Aug '22

Folks, Klemens Morgenstern kindly volunteered [1] as the Review Manager (thanks Klemens!) for the Boost.URL [2], so we have planned the review shortly after the upcoming release of the Boost 1.80. Check the Review Schedule [3] for details! [1] https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2022/06/253225.php [2] https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2022/04/252814.php [3] https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html Best regards, -- The Boost Review Wizards Mateusz Loskot

3 4

[review][JSON] Review of JSON starts today: Sept 14 - Sept 23
by Pranam Lashkari 09 Aug '22

09 Aug '22

Boost formal review of Vinnie Falco and Krystian Stasiowski's library JSON starts today and will run for 10 days ending on 23 Sept 2020. Both of these authors have already developed a couple of libraries which are accepted in Boost(boost beast and Static String) This library focuses on a common and popular use-case for JSON. It provides a container to hold parsed and serialised JSON types. It provides more flexibility and better benchmark performance than its competitors. JSON highlights the following features in the documentation: - Fast compilation - Require only C++11 - Fast streaming parser and serializer - Easy and safe API with allocator support - Constant-time key lookup for objects - Options to allow non-standard JSON - Compile without Boost, define BOOST_JSON_STANDALONE - Optional header-only, without linking to a library (a point I would like to add in highlight: it has cool Jason logo 😝) To quickly understand and get the flavour of the library take a look at "Quick Look" <http://master.json.cpp.al/json/usage/quick_look.html> You can find the source code to be reviewed here: <https://github.com/CPPAlliance/json/tree/master> You can find the latest documentation here: <http://master.json.cpp.al/> Benchmarks are also given in the document which can be found here: <http://master.json.cpp.al/json/benchmarks.html> Some people have also given the early reviews, the thread can be found here: <https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2020/09/249745.php> Please provide in your review information you think is valuable to understand your choice to ACCEPT or REJECT including JSON as a Boost library. Please be explicit about your decision (ACCEPT or REJECT). Some other questions you might want to consider answering: - 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 which compiler(s)? 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? More information about the Boost Formal Review Process can be found here: <http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html> Thank you for your effort in the Boost community. -- Thank you, Pranam Lashkari, https://lpranam.github.io/

21 73

Boost 1.80 closed for all major changes
by Glen Fernandes 05 Jul '22

05 Jul '22

The next deadlines: - On 2022-07-06 master is closed for all changes. - On 2022-07-13 the beta is published -- Release Managers

3 6

Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Boost.URL review planned for 13-22 August 2022
by Vinnie Falco 29 Jun '22

29 Jun '22

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 2:15 AM Mateusz Loskot via Boost-users <boost-users(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > we have planned the review shortly after the upcoming release of the Boost 1.80. The review starts in August but there is no rule that says folks can't look at the library sooner :) The library is in very good shape and likely usable for your project today (although we do expect bugs to be found, which will be fixed as they get reported). Check it out here: <https://github.com/CPPAlliance/url> Docs: <https://master.url.cpp.al/> We're glad to answer any questions at any time either on the list or feel free to open an issue in the repository (even if it is just a question). Thanks

2 1

Boost Regression Results Not Updating
by Tom Kent 25 Jun '22

25 Jun '22

I just noticed that something happened with the regression results and they haven't updated since last Friday. https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/summary.html https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/summary.html I'm not sure where these run these days, would it fit in a github action on the regression repo? Tom

3 3

Possible develop config issue on arm32
by Tom Kent 25 Jun '22

25 Jun '22

I have a regression runner running on raspberry pi 32-bit architecture (in addition to a one on 64-bit raspberry pi and tons of X86). gcc-8 builds fine in both master and develop clang-9 builds fine on master clang-9 running the same command line, just on develop, has errors like this [1], finding basic includes: ``` "clang++-9" -c -x c++ -Wno-c99-extensions -std=c++2a -O0 -fno-inline -Wall -g --target=arm-pc-linux -Wno-deprecated-declarations -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_BEAST_ALLOW_DEPRECATED -DBOOST_BEAST_SEPARATE_COMPILATION -DBOOST_TEST_NO_AUTO_LINK=1 -I".." -o "/mnt/fs1/teeks99-05/run/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/accumulators/test/count.test/clang-linux-9~c++2a/debug/link-static/count.o" "../libs/accumulators/test/count.cpp" clang: warning: unknown platform, assuming -mfloat-abi=soft clang: warning: unknown platform, assuming -mfloat-abi=soft In file included from ../libs/accumulators/test/count.cpp:6: In file included from ../boost/test/unit_test.hpp:18: In file included from ../boost/test/test_tools.hpp:17: In file included from ../boost/config.hpp:44: ../boost/config/detail/select_stdlib_config.hpp:26:14: fatal error: 'cstddef' file not found # include <cstddef> ^~~~~~~~~ 1 error generated. ``` The relevant line of the user-config.jam is: using clang : 9~c++2a : clang++-9 : <cxxflags>"-Wno-c99-extensions -std=c++2a" ; The two command lines being run are: run.py --runner=teeks99-05-mc9-2a-32onarmv7l --toolsets=clang-9~c++2a \ "--bjam-options=-j4 address-model=32 --remove-test-targets" \ --comment=info.html --tag=master run.py --runner=teeks99-05-dc9-2a-32onarmv7l --toolsets=clang-9~c++2a \ "--bjam-options=-j4 address-model=32 --remove-test-targets" \ --comment=info.html --tag=develop Any ideas why master and develop would be different in this regard? Something with B2 changes? Thanks, Tom [1] https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/teeks99-05…

3 2