- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[Fit] Update: Request for feedback
by Paul Fultz II 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

Hi, I have made a lot of updates to the Fit library based on the changes suggested during the review earlier this year. I have also improved the documentation. I have expanded on the introductory materials and have add a lot more cross-referencing. The documentation can be found here: http://fit.readthedocs.io <http://fit.readthedocs.io/> Let me know of any feedback about the library either here on the mailing list or on Github issues. Thanks, Paul

4 9

Requirements: min and max macros
by Vinnie Falco 05 Feb '17

05 Feb '17

From http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Naming "Make sure your code compiles in the presence of the min() and max() macros. Some platform headers define min() and max()macros which cause some common C++ constructs to fail to compile. Some simple tricks can protect your code from inappropriate macro substitution:..." There is one case not addressed. What to do with this: std::min<std::size_t>(a, b); ?

3 2

[build] Pre-built libraries and targets
by Edward Diener 04 Feb '17

04 Feb '17

In a jamfile I have: lib user32 ; lib gdi32 ; exe test1 : main.cpp user32 gdi32 ; According to the Boost Build documentation the 'lib' syntax above refers to pre-built libraries, and not libraries I mean to build as a shared or static library. When I run b2 with a particular toolset, and use the --debug-building option to see what targets are being built, I see results of: Building target '../../../libs/test_local/build/user32'... and Building target '../../../libs/test_local/build/gdi32'... Furthermore the build of the test1.exe does not add the user32 or gdi32 pre-built libraries to the linker command line. Can anyone tell me why Boost Build is attempting to build a target for a library which I specify as a pre-built library ?

1 0

Call for Submissions: International Conference on Information Society (i-Society 2017) || July 17-19, 2017, Dublin, Ireland
by David Brown, i-Society 2016 03 Feb '17

03 Feb '17

1 0

Mail Lists Migrate at 00:00 UTC Feb 3
by Michael Caisse 02 Feb '17

02 Feb '17

The following mail lists will be switched to new infrastructure at 00:00 UTC on February 3rd. There will be a small interruption while the DNS/MX records propagate. * Boost - Boost developers' mailing list * Boost-announce - Boost announce-only mailing list * Boost-bugs - Bugs reported/updated through Boost's Trac * Boost-build - Boost.Build developer's and user's list * Boost-cmake - Discussion of the CMake-based build system for Boost * Boost-commit - Boost Subversion commit messages * Boost-docs - Discussion of Boost Documentation * Boost-Interest - Moderated announcements of interest to the Boost community. * Boost-maint - Boost community maintenance mailing list * Boost-mpi - Discussion of Boost.MPI development * Boost-test - Test list for the boost mailing lists * Boost-Testing - Running Boost regression tests * Boost-users - Boost Users mailing list * Geometry - Boost.Geometry library mailing list * glas - Generic Linear Algebra Software * proto - Discussions about Boost.Proto and DSEL design * threads-devel - Discussions about the boost.thread library * ublas - ublas mailing list -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com

1 0

[factory][bind] C2664 with MSVC 2015 & 1.63
by Jens Weller 02 Feb '17

02 Feb '17

Hello Boost, I'm having this Problem: http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2015/04/84176.php That message already describes pretty much what I see, except that I use 1.63 and the latest 2015 VC++. Errormessage: D:\cpp\libraries\boost_1_63_0\boost\bind\bind.hpp:388: error: C2664: 'ListsModuleWidget *boost::factory<ListsModuleWidget *,void,boost::factory_alloc_for_pointee_and_deleter>::operator ()(void) const': cannot convert argument 1 from 'Module *' to 'Module *&' bind.hpp code: > template<class R, class F, class A> R operator()(type<R>, F & f, A & a, long) > { > >>this line return unwrapper<F>::unwrap(f, 0)(a[base_type::a1_], a[base_type::a2_], a[base_type::a3_]); > } Compiler says: ..\..\..\..\cpp\libraries\boost_1_63_0\boost/bind/bind.hpp(388): error C2664: 'ListsModuleWidget *boost::factory<ListsModuleWidget *,void,boost::factory_alloc_for_pointee_and_deleter>::operator ()(void) const': cannot convert argument 1 from 'Module *' to 'Module *&' ..\..\..\..\cpp\libraries\boost_1_63_0\boost/bind/bind.hpp(1342): note: see reference to function template instantiation 'R *boost::_bi::list3<boost::arg<1>,boost::arg<2>,boost::arg<3>>::operator ()<ListsModuleWidget*,F,boost::_bi::rrlist4<A1,A2,A3,A4>>(boost::_bi::type<ListsModuleWidget *>,F &,A &,long)' being compiled with [ R=ListsModuleWidget *, F=boost::factory<ListsModuleWidget *,void,boost::factory_alloc_for_pointee_and_deleter>, A1=Module *, A2=const QString &, A3=const QString &, A4=QWidget *, A=boost::_bi::rrlist4<Module *,const QString &,const QString &,QWidget *> ] cheers, Jens Weller

2 4

[outcome] Feedback on parts A and B of Tutorial mk III requested
by Niall Douglas 02 Feb '17

02 Feb '17

Dear Boost, I am truly hoping that this will be the last time I ask for feedback on Outcome's tutorial as this is the third complete rewrite. Many thanks for all the feedback so far, this Mk. III tutorial wouldn't look like this without all your help. Part A is 100% on pure expected<T, E> as currently before the standards committee. It has nothing to do with Outcome, but places Outcome in context. Part B is a polemic on why people should not use arbitrary type E in expected<T, E> and instead should restrain themselves to either E = std::error_code or E = std::exception_ptr. I'm requesting feedback on parts A and B of the tutorial which I think are mostly complete now. Specific feedback on these topics is particularly welcomed: 1. I've tried to make some of the code examples in Part A less contrived. Are there any obviously specific additional things I can do (note Parts B and C have more realistic programs)? 2. Are you convinced by the end of Part B that using arbitrary types for type E is a bad idea? If not, what did I fail to do in my explanation? Many thanks in advance. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

2 5

filtering_streambuf: Compressing a character buffer
by Adlai Shawareb 02 Feb '17

02 Feb '17

Hi, I have a character buffer ( "buffer" ) of known size ( "size_in_bytes" ), and would like to compress it using gzip_compressor and then get a pointer to the compressed buffer along with the compressed size. I've put together the following, but it says the first counter is 0 and the second counter is 2. Any help that can be offered is appreciated. namespace io = boost::iostreams; boost::asio::streambuf sb; std::ostream os(&sb); os.write( buffer, size_in_bytes ); io::filtering_streambuf<boost::iostreams::output> out; out.push(io::counter()); out.push(io::gzip_compressor()); out.push(io::counter()); out.push(os); io::close(out); // Needed for flushing the data from compressor std::ostream output(&out); // Maybe I can use rdbuf() to get the pointer to the stream?

1 0

[type_erasure] Inefficient extra shared_ptr copy when passing parameter of type _self
by Yuanchen Zhu 01 Feb '17

01 Feb '17

Hi List, I have been using boost::type_erasure a bit. I found that in the case of implementing equality_comparable, when it passes into operator== a placeholder argument corresponding to some any<C, T>, it always wraps it in a param<C, T>, which internally instantiates an any<C, T&>. While this instantiation does not cause the actual content to be copied, it always clone the share_ptr pointing to the dispatch table, causing an extra shared_ptr construct/destruct invocation whenever I do an equality comparison. This source of inefficiency seems unnecessary to me. Is it possible to modify param<C, T> such that it only stores non-ref counted raw reference to the original argument? Of course the functions in type_erasure::detail::access need to be updated accordingly. Will this modification break some grander scheme underlying type_erasure that I am unaware of, being new to the code base? It seems to me that when param<C, T> wraps a temporary, the temporary is guaranteed to live past the lifetime of the invocation. Can people vet this idea before I take a stab at changing the code? Thanks, Yuanchen

1 0

[serialization][uBlas] Serialization still breaking anything that uses uBlas?
by John Maddock 01 Feb '17

01 Feb '17

See for example: http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/teeks99-02-… I'd really like to get these failures off my radar if possible... Thanks, John.

2 1