- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[multi_index] Doc suggestion.
by Mostafa 11 Nov '14

11 Nov '14

Not being able to mutate elements through non-const iterators is surprising enough that I forget about it every time I use Boost.MultiIndex. Part of the reason for this is that this information is buried under section "multi_index/doc/tutorial/basics.html#seq_indices". I suggest that the following paragraph: "That is, iterators of a sequenced index (of all types of indices, actually) point to constant elements. This limitation might come as a surprise, but it is imposed by the way multi_index_containers work; if elements were allowed to be changed in this manner, we could introduce inconsistencies in other ordered indices of the multi_index_container. Element modification can nevertheless be done by means of update operations." be moved under "multi_index/doc/tutorial/basics.html#iterator_access" as a call-out.

2 5

Boost Incubator Status Report
by Robert Ramey 11 Nov '14

11 Nov '14

Felix Uhl wrote > On 28/10/2014, Rob Stewart wrote: > > >Currently, I am documenting the first version of the library to make it >>available on the Boost Library Incubator website, > > I can hear Robert yelling, "Yes!" Yes! The experience so far with the incubator is very interesting. Here are couple of observations. a) I anticipated more submissions since the process seems so easy and the bar is very low. As a practical matter the requirements boil down to having code, tests, documentation which implies some examples. There are no restrictions of format of any of these things. But if you troll the net looking for libraries very few library ideas fulfill these requirements. It turns out that fulfilling even these modest (in my view) requirements is more than many people find necessary. b) The quality of the submissions is a lot better then I had anticipated. All of them are credible, serious efforts which are worthy of serious consideration for inclusion in Boost. That's not to say that all would eventually be accepted as I have only given them a cursory examination. c) There are very few comments on the pages of the website and on the library pages. So far there is only one formal review. I'm sort of disappointed in this. It goes to our problem in getting enough reviews in general. The one review (boost compute) was from one who downloaded and tested the library, liked it, and included it in production. Of course the review was very positive. I would hope to see more of this in the future. d) To support more reviews, I have on my todo list to keep track of who invokes the download/repo links and match them up with the users email address and send out a gentle reminder that if he spent the time to look at and consider the library, he should either comment or add a formal review. I would also like to see some of the posting on this list regarding library proposals to moved to the library comments page. Another alternative would be to link from the library comment page to the developer's list thread(s) which touch upon the library. In any case, I want to see more activity in this area. Any of these require good experience with wordpress and some available time - so I don't see these happening soon. e) I would like to see a little more support from Boost Steering Committee on this effort. Specifically I would like to see the Announcement that Boost endorses the Boost Library Incubator (www.blincubator) packaged and distributed as press release so that it would show up in places like Dr Dobbs Journal. (http://www.drdobbs.com) and isocpp.org (http://isocpp.org) It is a great disappointment to me that in spite of a fair amount of effort, I've been unable to get these sites (among others) to announce the Boost endorsement of Boost Library Incubator. Finally - By next monday, I'll have in place a new facility. This is support on the library page whereby companies which have interest in a particular library will be able to contact the library author in order to offer financial sponsorship for his efforts. Companies which do this will be able to ask for special features and/or extensions, custom versions, extra support or anything they want. Authors will have the option of placing sponsors logos and links on their library pages. This will offer developers of open source the first opportunity in history to be compensated as the rock stars we are. Thanks for everyone for help so far in promoting the Boost Library Incubator. Please continue your efforts. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Incubator-Status-Report-tp4668747.… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

12 42

Please welcome Nevin Liber as a list moderator
by Beman Dawes 11 Nov '14

11 Nov '14

Nevin has been a long-time Boost Users list moderator, C++Now participant, and C++ committee member. He has graciously agreed to help moderate the Boost developers list. Please welcome Nevin as a list moderator! --Beman

6 5

[git][flyweight] something messed up with master and develop branch
by Joaquin M Lopez Munoz 11 Nov '14

11 Nov '14

Dear Git connoiseurs: I've realized that my master and develop branches at boostorg/flwight appear collapsed: https://github.com/boostorg/flyweight/network Yet I am seemingly able to treat them separately: commit to develop, test, merge to master etc. The only weird thing is the diagram above and the fact that the commit log in master doesn't have the usual "Merge branch 'develop'" commits: https://github.com/boostorg/flyweight/commits/master Any clue what's going on? Thank you! Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica

4 9

[release][1.58.0] Updating master and other business.
by Daniel James 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

Hello all, It's almost a week since the release, so unless there are any objections I'll restart automatically updating the master branch of the super project in a day or so. I'll also tag the submodules for the last two releases. Please can someone with the appropriate Trac permissions update the milestones and versions. Finally, if anyone has any new libraries that they want to include in the next release, please let us know soon. thanks, Daniel

4 5

VC14 CTP4 Atomic don't compile with boost::chrono durations which are not TriviallyCopyable
by Klaim - Joël Lamotte 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

I was testing my code with VC14 and found this issue. I'm just not sure what to do about it, should I consider it a bug of Boost.Chrono or not? This complete example does not compile in VC14 CTP4: #include <atomic> #include <boost/chrono.hpp> std::atomic<boost::chrono::milliseconds> ms; // error C2338: atomic<T> requires T to be trivially copyable. Using the standard library instead works as expected: #include <atomic> #include <chrono> std::atomic<std::chrono::milliseconds> ms; // no error The compiler is correct that boost::chrono::duration is not trivially copyable (as described on cppreference.com at least) but it seems (from looking at the code) that it's mostly concept check code used in constructors definitions that trigger the problem. So I'm not sure if it should be fixed or not or what to do with this info.

2 3

Boost library incubator problem
by Edward Diener 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

When I go to the Boost Library Incubator at http://rrsd.com/blincubator.com/, click on the libraries listed alphabetically, and then click on any library, I get: "Not Found Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. Perhaps searching will help."

2 5

Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report
by Felix Uhl 08 Nov '14

08 Nov '14

Rob Stewart wrote: > When interviewing C++ developers, I find those using Boost libraries, at least beyond shared_ptr, are rare. > The brand is known by relatively few, and it is used, to any significant extent, by fewer still. > That implies the need to grow our ranks through some form of advertising. I came to the observation that boost is well known in more experienced circles of programmers, but, as you said, not that frequently used. As it was previously mentioned, this issue could be solved by entering collaborations with compiler distributors to include boost, or at least a subset of it in their compiler. The only reason STL is used so heavily is because it is a pseudo part of the language, bundled with every compiler, a consistent, standardised foundation to rely on. If the inclusion of boost was as simple as the inclusion of the STL, more programmers would use it. This is what boost seemed like to me after reading herb sutters books: It is a less coherent extension of STL, an idea of what the future might hold. Imagine how well boost would be known if it was bundled with MSVC and gcc. --- Felix Uhl ________________________________ Von: Rob Stewart<mailto:robertstewart@comcast.net> Gesendet: ‎08.‎11.‎2014 11:48 An: boost(a)lists.boost.org<mailto:boost@lists.boost.org> Betreff: Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report On November 7, 2014 5:35:02 PM EST, Edward Diener <eldiener(a)tropicsoft.com> wrote: >On 11/7/2014 11:23 AM, Robert Ramey wrote: >> Vladimir Prus-3 wrote > > The motivation behind the >> design of the incubator is to "make participation easier" by >decoupling the >> preparation of the review from a specific 1-2 week time frame. It >was also >> specifically designed to not alter the actual Boot Review process. > >Other than lengthening the formal review process to encourage more >people to participate I do not see any means to get people more >interested in reviewing Boost libraries. That is the notion behind the incubator: allow the review period to be open indefinitely, particularly in advance of the formal review period. > As far as the incubator is >concerned I feel it is a good idea but nobody is using it to comment on >libraries. Links from the review queue to the incubator page for each library could help people discover the incubator. > As far as Boost reviews it appears that most programmers are >afraid to even make comments about a potential library in which they >may be interested. Maybe the specter of C++ experts scares them away. Maybe >they feel that they might look foolish if they make a comment which is >based on just a partial understanding of the library involved. What leads you to that conclusion? There are multiple factors that prevent my commenting on a library: * No interest in the domain * No knowledge of the domain * Too busy I realize I'm not in the "too afraid because of experts" camp you describe, but I've not commented on any of the libraries and it isn't due to fear. >Finally there is a decided problem with the lack of people willing to >be >review managers for a library. I think it would be a good idea to >establish a pool of people, with their e-mail addresses, willing to be >review managers and then when a library is on the review queue one of >the review managers would send out e-mail to all people in the pool >asking each one if he would be willing to be the review manager for a >particular library. If no one at a given time in the pool will agree, >then after some pre-established time period the process repeats itself. I've offered to be a review manager a couple of times, but the libraries never went to review or another did the job. However, the last I looked there were multiple libraries I don't feel competent to judge. Being a review manager is more than verifying that examples compile, that documentation exists, etc. One must be able to judge comments and reviews to decide between opposite views, etc. That requires domain knowledge and experience, if not expertise. There are fewer general purpose libraries on tap now. Obviously, folks have more or less time at different periods of their lives, so one can go through periods of no or little participation. There's also the real issue of changes to the industry. As one seeks interesting and lucrative or stable employment, one may target new kinds of development which can mean new languages. Thus, one may retain a more nostalgic interest in C++, but no longer be interested to invest the time needed to be a review manager. To solve those problems requires finding and engaging new blood. When interviewing C++ developers, I find those using Boost libraries, at least beyond shared_ptr, are rare. The brand is known by relatively few, and it is used, to any significant extent, by fewer still. That implies the need to grow our ranks through some form of advertising. ___ Rob (Sent from my portable computation engine) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report
by Felix Uhl 08 Nov '14

08 Nov '14

Robert Ramey wrote: > If you select the "Display Statistics" Button on the Safe Numerics and > display the last 60 days of activity, you can see that the library page has > 50 visits. This is not a huge number. A book on Amazon might > sell 1000 copies and get a couple of reviews (most of whom are > likely the author's relatives). So as the incubator becomes more > a "go to" place to look for libraries, the question of small number > of reviews would solve itself. (hopefully). It seems to me that the whole point that is missing from the incubator is actual usage of it. I like the concept a lot, but do you actually have any plans on how to increase the usage? Just adding features isn’t going to help as long as you haven’t reached a critical point in community size where people start spreading the word on new features. I think this is a very inherent problem to a programmers way of thinking: We envision a great platform, a great framework, a great tool, and set out to implement it, but after doing so, have no idea on how to do follow-up work: Financials, Community building and management, “marketing” or just garnering interest in your project in the first place. In short: What you want to do with the incubator is great, and if it gets going it will quite surely be a great addition to boost. But how will you get it going? --- Felix Uhl Von: Robert Ramey Gesendet: ‎Freitag‎, ‎7‎. ‎November‎ ‎2014 ‎23‎:‎57 An: boost(a)lists.boost.org Edward Diener-3 wrote > Other than lengthening the formal review process to encourage more > people to participate I do not see any means to get people more > interested in reviewing Boost libraries. As far as the incubator is > concerned I feel it is a good idea but nobody is using it to comment on > libraries. > > As far as Boost reviews it appears that most programmers are > afraid to even make comments about a potential library in which they may > be interested. Maybe the specter of C++ experts scares them away. Maybe > they feel that they might look foolish if they make a comment which is > based on just a partial understanding of the library involved. If you select the "Display Statistics" Button on the Safe Numerics and display the last 60 days of activity, you can see that the library page has 50 visits. This is not a huge number. A book on Amazon might sell 1000 copies and get a couple of reviews (most of whom are likely the author's relatives). So as the incubator becomes more a "go to" place to look for libraries, the question of small number of reviews would solve itself. (hopefully). And of course if one can make a review at the moment he's decided to use or discard the library, it's more likely that, being in a state of ecstasy or frustration, he'll display his feelings by making a review while the facts and emotion are fresh in his mind. > Finally there is a decided problem with the lack of people willing to be > review managers for a library. Again, if we had more "pre-reviews" getting a review manager would be a snap. a) a library with a large number of negative pre-reviews will likely not even be selected for review. b) a library with no reviews suggests that it's not getting enough usage to be useful so maybe it's not worth reviewing. b) a library with a large number of positive reviews - it's easy to be the review manager. c) for the rest - well, at least the manager knows what he's in for. That might make it easier. In short, I would hope if we can make the incubator a success, it will help with the shortage of review managers. If any library in the incubator ever gets enough reviews, and gets reviewed, and passes review, I intend to leave all the reviews on display indefinitely. In fact, I intend to allow anyone to post review in the future. Current boost libraries vary a lot in quality but our current setup doesn't make that visible. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Incubator-Status-Report-tp4668747p… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

2 1

pp
by Jan Boehme 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

Hello, the file boost/preprocessor/config/variadics.hpp doesn't exist but is referenced in the pp docs. Regards, Jan

2 2