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

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Christian Mazakas 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

I'm the author of the <latch> PR for Core so I'm also naturally in favor of this addition. What's the protocol for accepting such a library into Boost? Does it still go through formal review? Most of what would go in there exists in already-accepted Boost libraries. For example, the aforementioned Boost.Algorithm and Boost.Core contains several such things as <span>, <bit> and in its detail folder, <string_view>. The good news though is that because we're simply polyfilling standardized practice, there's no need to bikeshed interfaces. Oh, I almost forgot about Boost.Optional. How do we reify all of these existing classes and functions? - Christian

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Zach Laine 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:21 AM Marshall Clow via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > On Apr 27, 2023, at 8:31 AM, Glen Fernandes via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:24 AM Peter Dimov via Boost < > > boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > > >> It would be nice if we had a dedicated place in Boost where to > >> put these, to avoid the need for everyone reimplementing a > >> private copy. > >> > >> At the moment, some of these have gone into Core, for lack of > >> anywhere else, and we now have a <latch> contribution (which I > >> encouraged): > >> > >> https://github.com/boostorg/core/pull/144 > >> > >> However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. > >> > >> So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat > >> (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. > >> > >> Thoughts? (Be sure to read the discussion in the PR as well.) > >> > > > > > > For the rest of the list: I'm in favor of this (as my response in the > > Core thread indicates). > > There’s a lot of this kind of stuff in Boost.Algorithm > > Boost/algorithm/cxx11, for example. Ha. Read first, then post, Zach. Zach

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Zach Laine 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:16 AM Peter Dimov via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > Newer C++ standards (20) have been adding useful things to the > standard library (<bit>, <latch>, etc) and most of us would like to > use them, both in Boost and outside of it, while still supporting > C++11, or 14, or 17. > > Many of these components are straightforward to implement > using the C++11 standard library, consist of not much than one > relatively small header, don't need many Boost dependencies > beyond the required ones (Assert, ThrowException, Config), and > since their interface is already fixed by the standard, don't need > a design review. > > It would be nice if we had a dedicated place in Boost where to > put these, to avoid the need for everyone reimplementing a > private copy. > > At the moment, some of these have gone into Core, for lack of > anywhere else, and we now have a <latch> contribution (which I > encouraged): > > https://github.com/boostorg/core/pull/144 > > However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. > > So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat > (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. > > Thoughts? (Be sure to read the discussion in the PR as well.) I like this idea a lot. I want to mention that there are lots of places currently that do a partial job of this. One conspicuous one is Algorithm. There are probably lots of others. Having one place to get all the compatibility bits would be very welcome. Zach

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Marshall Clow 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Apr 27, 2023, at 8:31 AM, Glen Fernandes via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:24 AM Peter Dimov via Boost < > boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > >> It would be nice if we had a dedicated place in Boost where to >> put these, to avoid the need for everyone reimplementing a >> private copy. >> >> At the moment, some of these have gone into Core, for lack of >> anywhere else, and we now have a <latch> contribution (which I >> encouraged): >> >> https://github.com/boostorg/core/pull/144 >> >> However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. >> >> So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat >> (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. >> >> Thoughts? (Be sure to read the discussion in the PR as well.) >> > > > For the rest of the list: I'm in favor of this (as my response in the > Core thread indicates). There’s a lot of this kind of stuff in Boost.Algorithm Boost/algorithm/cxx11, for example. — Marshall

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Glen Fernandes 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:24 AM Peter Dimov via Boost < boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > It would be nice if we had a dedicated place in Boost where to > put these, to avoid the need for everyone reimplementing a > private copy. > > At the moment, some of these have gone into Core, for lack of > anywhere else, and we now have a <latch> contribution (which I > encouraged): > > https://github.com/boostorg/core/pull/144 > > However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. > > So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat > (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. > > Thoughts? (Be sure to read the discussion in the PR as well.) > For the rest of the list: I'm in favor of this (as my response in the Core thread indicates). Glen

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Niall Douglas 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On 27/04/2023 16:16, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote: > However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. > > So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat > (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. I'd prefer if those polyfills were categorised according to C++ standard, so: Boost.CXX11 Boost.CXX14 Boost.CXX17 Boost.CXX20 Boost.CXX23 ... Then when a person upgrades the minimum C++ standard for a codebase, what needs to be switched to std:: is very easy to identify. Niall

1 0

Boost.Compat
by Peter Dimov 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

Newer C++ standards (20) have been adding useful things to the standard library (<bit>, <latch>, etc) and most of us would like to use them, both in Boost and outside of it, while still supporting C++11, or 14, or 17. Many of these components are straightforward to implement using the C++11 standard library, consist of not much than one relatively small header, don't need many Boost dependencies beyond the required ones (Assert, ThrowException, Config), and since their interface is already fixed by the standard, don't need a design review. It would be nice if we had a dedicated place in Boost where to put these, to avoid the need for everyone reimplementing a private copy. At the moment, some of these have gone into Core, for lack of anywhere else, and we now have a <latch> contribution (which I encouraged): https://github.com/boostorg/core/pull/144 However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. Thoughts? (Be sure to read the discussion in the PR as well.)

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Vinnie Falco 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:56 AM Robert Ramey via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > Boost has a history making it's own tools: > ... > It's not a great history. In fact, I spend more time getting boost > tools to work than I do working on boost software. The difference here is that our efforts are powered by staff engineers who draw a salary and external corporations who have, as a condition of payment, the accomplishment of our goals. Thanks

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Vinnie Falco 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:56 AM Robert Ramey via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > I fail to see what is to be gained by replacing the current system. The current system is not being "replaced" it is being enhanced, with the OPTION (but not the requirement) to interact with the mailing lists using a modern, forum-based interface. Just as there are folks who have expressed that they would not participate in Boost discussions outside of the mailing list interface, there are as many (or more) people who have expressed that they will not interact with Boost through the mailing list at all. You don't hear from them because well, they don't post to the list (the dog that didn't bark). You ask, what is to be gained? Well, the largest existential threat to Boost is that we do not refresh the foundations of our social technology and our membership. Library membership in Boost no longer carries the cachet that it used to. Authors of new libraries increasingly prefer to go directly to the C++ standard instead of being thoroughly vetted in a Boost review. If we want to continue to maintain Boost's extraordinary relevance, we must do the following: 1. Make the mailing list more appealing to younger generations (millenials and the TikTok youths) 2. Increase participation in the Boost Formal Review process 3. Spark the imagination of the new generations of library authors - to write new libraries - to submit their libraries to Boost for review - to become active maintainers upon acceptance 4. Inspire people to contribute to Boost - by using the libraries, and providing feedback - by contributing to individual projects - by helping with documentation - by helping other users with questions or problems The mailing lists must never go away, for as long as there are even a few people who prefer them. But this cannot be the sole method to participate in the Boost social space. To stay current we must provide additional choices. The need for a forum interface is obvious. Thanks

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Robert Ramey 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On 4/26/23 8:02 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: > - No existing solution meets our needs, so we have to write it ourselves The above sentence is a huge red flag. Boost has a history making it's own tools: a) documentation chain b) build system - Bjam c) build system - CMake integration c) CI d) GitHub integration d) probably some others I forgot It's not a great history. In fact, I spend more time getting boost tools to work than I do working on boost software. Like most computer projects, it turns out to be a lot of work which drags on forever and is constantly fiddled with to make work. When the work becomes tedious enthusiasm peters out and were stuck with something that "can be made to work". I fail to see what is to be gained by replacing the current system. Robert Ramey

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Gavin Lambert 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On 27/04/2023 08:40, Robert Ramey wrote: > I use a threaded email reader - Thunderbird. > > I get my mailing list posts via a news reader. > > This is a perfectly wonderful setup and I'd be loath to change it. +1 on all three points. Via gmane, specifically. Thus far a newsreader has been the only successful way I can follow a community -- flat mailing lists are too disjointed and hard to follow context, and websites are "out of sight, out of mind"; I might keep up for a few weeks but inevitably forget for a while and then I'm 1k messages behind and I just ignore it forever.

1 0

proposal Multi multidimensional array library
by Alfredo Correa 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

Hi all, My name is Alfredo. I would like to propose this library called Multi for inclusion in Boost. Multi is a container and views library for (dynamic) multidimensional arrays. The library is available here, https://gitlab.com/correaa/boost-multi. The Boost prefix is purely aspirational at this point, of course. As I understand the process, the important step at this point is to find someone(s) to endorse the library and later a review manager. If you want to be an endorser, please let me know. If anyone has feedback or tips to prepare it for a review, please let me know as well. I will be at the Aspen CPPNOW conference if someone wants to discuss it in person. I am in the C++ Slack channel #boost for discussions as well. Here is a link to try it quickly online https://godbolt.org/z/KerbxW6WK. Thank you, Alfredo

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Robert Ramey 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On 4/26/23 7:08 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: > Before we replace the mailing list with a forum (and implement a mail > gateway) can I get feedback on how you use the mailing list from your > email client? > > Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? If so, do you care if > discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? What is important > to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? > I use a threaded email reader - Thunderbird. I get my mailing list posts via a news reader. This is a perfectly wonderful setup and I'd be loath to change it. Robert Ramey

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Mateusz Loskot 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 19:26, Nikita Kniazev via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > There is GitHub Discussion. What is wrong to enable Discussions on > https://github.com/boostorg/boost and use it? Indeed, why not try GitHub Discussions as a new space to evaluate interest in a Web-based forum. I'm happy with the current mailman, but if any migration is considered, then IMHO it should improve integration of comm, and not distribute it further. I'm not saying I'm a die-hard fan of GHD, but I am willing to trade some of my personal preferences for single place I go to. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Mateusz Loskot 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 16:08, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? Gmail, flat. I occasionally appreciate threaded view on lists.boost.org. > What is important to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? Usable search. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Nikita Kniazev 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

> Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? If so, do you care if discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? I use Gmail which I think supports threads, but I subscribed to digests so no threads for me. > as no one in their twenties or earlier wants to use a mailing list I'm not from that demographic but I also don't want to use mailing lists. But I'm not a fan of 'forums' either. > What is important to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? 1. Main reason why I can't use the mail list: I don't want to subscribe to everything happening there. Probably there are email clients that make that easier, but that already excludes people who don't use such a client. 2. I subscribed to a digest and there is still no way to post to a thread without being subscribed to the mail list before it had been started. And even for one who had been subscribed it gives a wrong address to post to. 3. There is no way to link a post or thread. Inside the mail list itself or anywhere else. What are the options for a person who is not on the mail list? https://lists.boost.org? https://lists.boost.org is a user experience nightmare: 1. You can't post, only may create a new thread by mailing to the mail list. 2. You have to click on every message to read it. 3. In a threaded view you also can see only one message at a time, and it is easy to miss parts of the thread by clicking the wrong button. 4. Google and other search engines for some reason have indexing issues with it. Even if I know something was on the mail list or there is a comment in Boost's code with a link to a dead Gmane I had great luck finding absolutely nothing with multiple web search engines. 5. There is no code snippet syntax highlighting. 6. It doesn't interact with itself, or anything else either. > implement our own web-based forum I don't think it's a good idea. > The other alternative is to do a clean break and deploy something completely new, which would be Discourse. The downside of Discourse is that it does not support threaded discussions, and because of their philosophical objection to hierarchical conversations >From my experience with Discourse a post will contain a list of replies to it which you can jump back and forth. I don't see a great value in highly branched discussions, it is impossible to follow even on things like Hacker News or Reddit, just create a new thread. And... There is GitHub Discussion. What is wrong to enable Discussions on https://github.com/boostorg/boost and use it? AFAIK it supports posting from a mail client and subscribing to it to receive everything or just subscribed threads by emails? > * Written in Ruby, a dying language GitHub is written in Ruby :-)

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Niall Douglas 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On 26/04/2023 15:43, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 7:12 AM Marshall Clow via Boost > <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: >>> Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? If so, do you care if >>> discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? >> >> Yes, and Yes. > > The current situation is this. For various reasons, we have no forum > for the new website. And a new forum is crucial for attracting new > people, as no one in their twenties or earlier wants to use a mailing > list. Twenty somethings don't use discussion forums either. Too passe. Re: Implementation last time this was discussed here and options investigated we found that https://fossil-scm.org/forum/forum implemented a web discussion forum with mailing list interface. One could use either interface, they were equivalent, and the UI seemed to meet approval here. I remember there were also other web discussion forum implementations with mailing list interface, but Fossil was the least unacceptable of them according to here, back in the day. Now, as to whether it could be improved upon, surely yes. However ever since Google stopped indexing discussion forms, I don't think they're the draw of users that they were. Nowadays if you can't find it on TikTok, it doesn't really exist for the under thirties. Niall

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Andrea Bocci 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 16:09, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > Before we replace the mailing list with a forum (and implement a mail > gateway) can I get feedback on how you use the mailing list from your > email client? > > Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? If so, do you care if > discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? What is important > to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? > Very simply, if you replace the mailing list(s) with a forum (or fora), I will stop following any Boost discussion. Best of luck, .Andrea -- Dr. Andrea Bocci Applied Physicist, CMS Experiment <https://cms.cern/>EP-CMD, CERN <https://home.cern/>168990 (+41 75 411 8990) CERN 40/1-B01 <https://maps.cern.ch/mapsearch/mapsearch.htm?n=['40/1-B01']> E27810 Esplanade des particules, 1, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland <https://goo.gl/maps/AMjHdhXzYk2itSu7A>

2 2

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Stefan Seefeld 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 10:53 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost < boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > Pros of Writing It Ourselves > > * Uses Python, a popular language > * Preserved mailing list experience > * Threaded discussions > * Customized to suit our needs > > Cons of Writing it Ourselves > > * More expensive long-term > * Takes longer to reach feature parity > * We have to maintain it > > Note, the C++ Alliance is covering all of the expenses for development > so the expense issue is not of particular importance, our priority is > on getting things done perfectly for users even if it costs a bit > more. > Perhaps there is a middle-way: layering whatever customization you need on top of existing infrastructure (e.g. Mailman) ? This could even be submitted upstream, if there is enough common interest, so Boost wouldn't have to own and maintain it in the long term... ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...

2 3

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Andrey Semashev 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On April 26, 2023 5:08:49 PM Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > Before we replace the mailing list with a forum (and implement a mail > gateway) can I get feedback on how you use the mailing list from your > email client? > > Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? If so, do you care if > discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? What is important > to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? Personally, I don't group posts by threads and read everything flat. But I recognize that others may have different preference, and one of the advantages of ML is that everyone can configure their mail client the way they want. I think this liberty should be preserved.

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Vinnie Falco 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 7:12 AM Marshall Clow via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? If so, do you care if > > discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? > > Yes, and Yes. The current situation is this. For various reasons, we have no forum for the new website. And a new forum is crucial for attracting new people, as no one in their twenties or earlier wants to use a mailing list. However, we also recognize the importance of preserving the mailing list interface and threaded discussion model. After spending months of doing tests and looking at existing solutions, we have reached the conclusion that the only way to bring maximal satisfaction to the community is for us to implement our own web-based forum which supports threaded discussion and also has a mailing list interface, such that the mailing list experience is unchanged for those who still want to use it (which seems to be quite a few people). The other alternative is to do a clean break and deploy something completely new, which would be Discourse. The downside of Discourse is that it does not support threaded discussions, and because of their philosophical objection to hierarchical conversations, it most certainly never will. Check this out: https://community.lsst.org/t/understanding-and-using-discourses-flat-thread… This rationale sounds very good on paper and it probably works for things such as support fourms. But it is poorly suited for the specific nature of the Boost mailing list where discussions can rage for months (I miss that). Enormous discussions were the bread and butter of the social experience and that needs to be revitalized. Anyway... Pros of Discourse: * Already written * Has an email interface * Can be restyled to match the site (mostly) * Probably cheaper long-term Cons of Discourse: * No threaded discussion * Written in Ruby, a dying language --- Pros of Writing It Ourselves * Uses Python, a popular language * Preserved mailing list experience * Threaded discussions * Customized to suit our needs Cons of Writing it Ourselves * More expensive long-term * Takes longer to reach feature parity * We have to maintain it Note, the C++ Alliance is covering all of the expenses for development so the expense issue is not of particular importance, our priority is on getting things done perfectly for users even if it costs a bit more.

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by René Ferdinand Rivera Morell 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 9:08 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? I use Gmail, so no? > What is important> to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? Good, email/forum specific search. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Stefan Seefeld 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 10:08 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost < boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > Before we replace the mailing list with a forum (and implement a mail > gateway) can I get feedback on how you use the mailing list from your > email client? > > Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? If so, do you care if > discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? What is important > to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? > yes !! Boost discussions sometimes go on for months, so having a structured view of the whole conversation is essential not to get lost. ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Marshall Clow 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On Apr 26, 2023, at 7:08 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > Before we replace the mailing list with a forum (and implement a mail > gateway) can I get feedback on how you use the mailing list from your > email client? > > Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? If so, do you care if > discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? Yes, and Yes. — Marshall

1 0

Replacing the ML with a forum
by Vinnie Falco 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

Before we replace the mailing list with a forum (and implement a mail gateway) can I get feedback on how you use the mailing list from your email client? Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? If so, do you care if discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? What is important to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? Thanks

1 0