October 2023 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[boost.async] new name
by Klemens Morgenstern 13 Oct '23

13 Oct '23

Given the renaming requirement, I'd like to query the list if there are any objections to any of the following names: async.core await co_async / cosync co20 / cor20 Thanks, Klemens

14 28

[Async] Naming land grab?
by Niall Douglas 12 Oct '23

12 Oct '23

Dear Boost, I have received a non-public review which raises concerns about the naming land grab by proposed Boost.Async i.e. a Boost library called "Async" claims too much through its name. Seeing as nobody here has raised this concern to date, can I confirm everybody here is fine with proposed Boost.Async being called Boost.Async? If you are not, please suggest a preferred alternative name. Niall

21 67

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

Re: [boost] Welcome to our NEW Boost Discourse server! 🥳🎉
by René Ferdinand Rivera Morell 12 Oct '23

12 Oct '23

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 5:33 PM David Sankel <camior(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 6:20 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell <grafikrobot(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> How does one start a new topic in a category through email on this? >> I.e. without using the web UI. Yes, I'm trying to use this thing. > > > It looks like this is something I needed to enable. You can try sending an email to boost+development-4(a)discoursemail.com to post to the boost development category. Why is that not a boost.org email address? Also, where do I find those email addresses? -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

2 3

[Async] Peer review report and conditions
by Niall Douglas 12 Oct '23

12 Oct '23

Dear Boost, Proposed Boost.Async by Klemens Morgenstern was reviewed between 8th and 18th August, and again between 22nd September and 2nd October. Reviews or substantially detailed comments came from: - /u/trailing_zero_count on Reddit - Ruben Perez - Marcelo Zimbres Silva - Andrzej Krzemienski - Mohammad Nejati - Janko Dedic - Robert Leahy I would like to thank those above for taking the time to write their detailed comments or reviews, and if I forgot to list anyone, please do forgive me. I did read all reviews and comments as they came in, so even if your name is not listed above, I did take into account your feedback. I would also like to thank all those far too many to list here who gave initial impressions, relaying spelling mistakes in the docs, or otherwise gave feedback of various forms. Boost could not continue without you! The tl;dr; outcome is that proposed Boost.Async is ACCEPTED but with CONDITIONS. Next follows are the **binding** conditions without which the library is not accepted: 1. The library needs to be renamed to something the Boost community doesn’t object to Quite a bit of discussion and feedback surrounded the proposed name “Boost.Async”. Multiple people felt that the name claims too much seeing as it is a C++ 20 coroutines only library, and is from first appearances entirely tied into Boost.ASIO (technically, any ASIO i/o executor can wrap any third party executor, but I can see where people get the strong ASIO association). I agree with Klemens that putting “ASIO” in the new name would be out of character with the other Boost libraries also heavily orientated around Boost.ASIO which do not have ASIO in their name. I find the suggestions that C++ 20 coroutines needs to be somehow in the name convincing. Exactly what form it should take I’ll leave up to the author and community to negotiate, but “Boost.Async” is definitely not a name with good buy-in in the Boost community. It cannot be named “Boost.Async” if it is to enter Boost. 2. The `select()` operation either needs to have its semantics changed, or be renamed Quite a few reviewers found the current semantics unpleasantly surprising, in that a random ready awaitable is chosen and all the others cancelled. This is far away from what `select()` typically means in the C and C++ worlds, and multiple reviewers commented negatively about this. The docs are unclear if it is guaranteed that the first ready awaitable is always chosen, or whether it is _some_ ready awaitable. The difference is important in many kinds of async programming. As this is a single threaded implementation, it should be possible to offer strict guarantees here. The semantics are acceptable if the operation is not called “select”, so I would suggest the easiest course here is to rename that operation to something more acceptable to the Boost community. 3. Channels need to terminate the process if relocated during use, or be made immovable, rather than it being UB to relocate them Some reviewers found the hard UB of moving a channel in use a poor design decision. Hard UB is good if it confers distinct benefits, however reviewers couldn’t see one here, and neither can I. As this library requires C++ 20 in any case, the obvious thing to do is make them immovable, but if that is felt too cumbersome, then they ought to noisily terminate the process or something not footgunny if relocated during use. Other non-binding feedback, which is not a hard condition of acceptance: - Multiple people found the naming of `promise` confusing. A promise is something in C++ land associated with a future, and I suppose in a few years it will also be associated with C++ coroutine awaitables. But here we have an awaitable named `promise`? Yes I know it makes sense in other programming languages, but here in C++ land it just seems weird and confusing for no obvious gain. I personally would suggest `eager_task` and `lazy_task` but I have no especially strong opinions on naming here other than that `promise` is a poor choice for any awaitable type. In fact, I think just don’t put the word “promise” into any awaitable type period. - I am sympathetic to multiple people raising the lack of preconditions and postconditions on operations described in the documentation. I also accept that in an async world, it’s hard to be precise. However, I think it would be a large benefit to the documentation to describe for each operation a list of the ways in which it can fail, and I think this should be added. - Andrzej took issue with the design of the generators, and I can see why. However, out in real world code land, C++ coroutine generators have surprisingly large amount of design variation. I’ve seen ones which you loop on testing them for boolean true, I’ve seen others which loop on their iterators, I’ve even seen ones which don’t implement either boolean true nor iterators and require you to call a `value()` member function which returns an Optional. Why? No idea, people seem to innovate uselessly here for some reason. I think it wise to adhere to `std::generator` from the standard, and do exactly what it does. From my reading of Async’s `generator`, whilst it has extensions e.g. the invocable call operator, the only thing missing is the iterator interface to make it implement `std::generator` and I don’t see any obvious reason why an iterator interface can’t be added here? - I agree with Andrzej about ever throwing `std::logic_error`, it should not be done in newly written code. It is recognised as a mistake by most on the standards committee nowadays. - The Mersenne Twister is a poor PRNG by modern standards. You should use JSF or anything else both much faster and higher quality. - More than one reviewer wants the docs to do a much better job on documenting pseudo-awaitables and awaitables and `await_transform`. - Quite a few times the docs talks about “async” when it really means “C++ coroutines”. - I think the docs does a poor job of disambiguating when what it is describing is part of the C++ standard, or it is part of Boost.Async. The reason this is important is that users need to know when/if they are locking themselves into Boost.Async proprietary extensions vs standard C++ coroutines. Finally, as a personal note on the review, it was notable how much negativity there currently is against C++ coroutines in general from the C++ community. A small number of us have been writing C++ coroutine code for many years now, we have been through the process of getting footgunned over lifetime issues, got frustrated that these coroutines are not the coroutines we were looking for, and eventually came round to understanding what C++ coroutines are good at solving, and more importantly what they are NOT good at solving. Once your head is wrapped around that, then comes the problem of having to reinvent a C++ coroutine support library because all the current open source ones have severe issues, especially around very tight coupling being imposed on your codebase. I don’t personally agree with every design decision in proposed Boost.Async, but I do think this will be a major step forward in making C++ coroutines accessible to many more developers than now, especially because this is to my knowledge the first standards-based loosely coupled C++ coroutines library which is open source. Undoubtedly after it ships with Boost, deficiencies will be found both in this library and in the currently quite poor quality implementation of C++ coroutines in the three major compilers. I very much hope that the increased number of developers using C++ coroutines as a result of this new Boost library will result in large and substantial improvements in implementation and library support of C++ coroutines. My thanks to Klemens for putting the work into what is a controversial and opinionated library design quite unlike any other currently available. It’s not easy to tread new ground without much precedent. My thanks to the Boost and Reddit communities for their ample and detailed review feedback, which made me managing this review possible.

5 13

Welcome to our NEW Boost Discourse server! 🥳🎉
by Inbal Levi 11 Oct '23

11 Oct '23

Hello everyone! Boost board has been working on a few improvements lately, one of which is to create a new *Boost Discourse server: https://discourse.boost.org/ <https://discourse.boost.org/>* The server is meant to allow more interactive and convenient development in the boost community, and we'll be happy to have you all there! *To join the server:* 1. Go to the URL: https://discourse.boost.org/ 2. Login to the discourse server 3. The server contains three categories: 1. Beginners - start here if you're new to Boost or to discourse 2. Boost Development - go here to create a new topic of discussion (roughly, we expect every new library will have its own discussion thread) 3. Community - go here if you'd like to start a thread about community topics, or if you'd like to talk about anything that doesn't fit the first two topics :) *To start a technical discussion:* 1. log-in 2. Go to the "*Boost Development*" category 3. Click on "+ New Topic" (in the right upper corner), and add a new discussion topic for your library! [image: image.png] Please review our Code of Conduct <https://cppnow.org/about/code_of_conduct/> before participation. We expect a respectful and positive discussion! If there are any technical issues, feel free to approach me at: sinbal2lextra(a)gmail.com or any other of the server admins: jeff(a)crystalclearsoftware.com, camior(a)gmail.com, whatwasthataddress(a)gmail.com Looking forward to seeing you all in our new discourse server! 🤗 Thanks, Inbal Levi, in the name of the Boost Foundation board members ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Lead Software Engineer @ Millenium* Isocpp, Boost &"Hamakor" Non-Profits Board Member ISO C++ LEWG Chair & Israeli NB Chair C++Now Program Chair & CoreC++ Conference Organizer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6 8

Mutual respect
by David Sankel 10 Oct '23

10 Oct '23

Some comments in the boost Async discussion were unconstructive and disrespectful. I want to remind folks that this is not how this community operates and thrives. Technical disagreements are, of course, fine and encouraged but we don't cross into putting people down, imputing nefarious motives, or disrespecting people's efforts. Thanks, -- David

2 1

Raising minimum target Windows version
by Andrey Semashev 08 Oct '23

08 Oct '23

Hi, I'm considering raising minimum target Windows version for my libraries to at least Windows 7. This means dropping workarounds for missing WinAPI functions that are present (but, for a very long time now, untested) for Windows XP. This specifically pertains to Boost.Atomic, Boost.Filesystem and Boost.Log. I'm also tempted to raise the requirement to Windows 8 to have access to WaitOnAddress & co., but I'm hesitant since Windows 7 might still be wide spread (perhaps, not on desktop but embedded). The current plan is to announce this in the release notes for the upcoming 1.84 release and drop the support in 1.85. This will mean the dependent libraries and tools will similarly drop support for older Windows versions. Additionally, I'm proposing to raise the default target Windows version in Boost.WinAPI to Windows 10, provided that the Windows SDK that is detected in compile time supports it. This means that by default many Boost libraries that rely on Boost.WinAPI for WinAPI definitions will target Windows 10. Which, in particular, means the prebuilt binaries we distribute will require Windows 10, unless libraries take explicit measures to stay compatible with older versions. I have no fixed time frame for the proposed Boost.WinAPI change, but it could be done as soon as in 1.84, since this doesn't remove anything, just changing the default. Comments? Objections? Counter-proposals? I'm especially interested in comments regarding Windows 7 as the new baseline - am I being too conservative? Thanks.

6 10

issue with boost::any documentation
by jepessen＠wteam.it 06 Oct '23

06 Oct '23

Hi. I was reading the online documentation for boost::any, when I went to this page: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_83_0/doc/html/any/ValueType.html clicking on the next arrow will go to this page https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_83_0/doc/html/reference_section.html that seems a page of boost::PFR instead of boost::any. In fact, by clicking on next and previous arrows, allows navigating to PFR documentation. Im not an expert on about how documentation works, so I dont know how fix it and make a pull request. What should I do? Daniele Lupo

2 1

[Async] Review from Janko Dedic
by Niall Douglas 02 Oct '23

02 Oct '23

This was sent to me privately with an express wish it be posted here. I don't know if the author is subscribed here, so I don't know if replies will be seen. This is the first REJECT review. Niall --- cut --- What follows is my review of the proposed Boost.Async library. >Please state your experience with C++ coroutines and ASIO in your review, and how many hours you spent on the review. I have considerable experience with C++ coroutines as I've been implementing my own coroutine types in the past. I have used Asio before in a professional setting, although I wouldn't call myself an Asio expert. My experience involved using Beast/Asio to perform HTTP requests and sending fan-out notifications to external subscribers. Notably, I have a lot of experience with asynchronous programming in other programming languages, mainly Java, Kotlin and JavaScript, but I'm also very familiar with how it works in Go and Rust. I would say I've spent around 10 hours evaluating the proposed library. When I first saw this library being proposed, I was hoping it would provide a more modern, capable and ergonomic version of asynchronous programming, like other modern programming languagues and unlike Asio. The goal of this library is seemingly not to provide such an out-of-the-box seamless solution, but very specifically to provide certain coroutine-related utilities and enable composition of different coroutine types, including user-defined coroutine types (unlike `asio::awaitable`). However, I don't think either characterization is entirely correct, and Boost.Async finds itself in an awkward middle. On one hand, it does not build on top of Asio to provide a modern and seamless experience which would completely replace the direct usage of Asio (which is exposed front-and-center in the interface and code using this library has to also use Asio a lot to get the job done). On the other hand, it's also not a completely generic "coroutine library" that only provides abstractions based on C++ coroutines that could be used by any library (because it depends on Asio specifically). In my view, the correct way to characterize this library would be to regard it as a bundle of coroutine-related utilities on top of Asio. However, the library is evidently not entirely compatible with any kind of Asio usage as it's focused on "simple single threaded asynchronicity." It can certainly be used in conjunction with Asio, but it definitely brings some additional nuance and complexity (which I don't think is good, considering that Asio has a lot of complexity of its own). When it comes to added functionality, there are definitely some welcome additions in the form of `async::with` for asynchronous clean-up, `async::select`, generators. What mainly stands out to me is channels, which are a very important bread-and-butter feature for many languages. However, we should keep in mind that Asio has some experimental support for channels as well, and users of this library would probably be faced with an unnecessary choice sometime in the future. One of the most advertised features is the ability to "compose arbitrary third party awaitables without any additional effort, which lets you tie together third party libraries with ease and convenience". Firstly, I don't think this is a goal worth pursuing. As a user, I would definitely want as few coroutine types as possible in my codebase (ideally one). `asio::awaitable` already nicely fits the bill. I very well understand that we need at least a few more for sync/async generators, but that's where I'd draw the line. Secondly, this library does not exactly fulfill the promise of "tying together third-party libraries with ease". Boost.Async does not work with any coroutine library out of the box. For example, my coroutine types are incompatible with it and the code doesn't compile. Same goes for `asio::awaitable`. There is definitely some integration effort necessary to wrangle these distinct types to work together. Related to this, I also dislike exposing the whole C++ coroutine machinery as some kind of a first-class "standard" API for integrating different coroutine types together. There is evidently no "standard" API for integrating different coroutine types as arbitrary coroutine types won't simply work together out of the box. Additionally, having used the standard coroutine customization points myself, I can't say I like this API at all and I consider it a necessary evil. It is very subtle, error-prone and hard to reason about. This is definitely not something that should be exposed to the users of the library, even experts. Implementing one coroutine type is hard enough, but making sure that two coroutine types from different authors work together is even harder. Considering the complexity of the standard coroutine API, even if my coroutine types compiled with this library's types, I would not trust the whole thing to actually work in all the edge cases. I believe `asio::awaitable` made the right choice here. I have built the library and played with the examples a bit. I've tried integrating it with my own coroutine types as I've described above. The documentation is filled with examples, which is good, but the reference section is lacking a bit in a sense that it doesn't document the signature, arguments, the return type, preconditions etc. as you would expect. I don't see this is a major issue because the documentation can always be improved, and perhaps we still have to discover how to effectively document coroutines because of how unique and different they are. I vote to REJECT this library on the basis outlined above. This is definitely an admirable effort and I want to see more progress for C++ in this direction, because the standardization efforts are not promising and there are still no open-source libraries comparable to the likes of Rust's Tokio and Kotlin's standard library. Unfortunately, I don't think this library is a step in the right direction. All the best, Janko Dedic

2 1