- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[release-1.65] changes in master
by Oliver Kowalke 01 Aug '17

01 Aug '17

Will commits that have been added to branch master in the last days be included into release 1.65? ty, Oliver

2 1

[BB++] 17 minutes long documentary
by Phil Bouchard 01 Aug '17

01 Aug '17

Like I promised, here's a 17 minutes long documentary on BB++ which now shows its internals: https://youtu.be/GrNDYWyasxg Regards, -Phil

3 3

[outcome] Outcome v2 has reached stability, WG21 paper will be P0762R0
by Niall Douglas 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

For boost-dev's information: https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/6qo1m3/outcome_v2_has_reached_stabili… --- cut -- I am pleased to announce that Outcome v2, rewritten to fulfil the Boost peer review feedback from May and only reaching feature completeness three weeks ago, has been successfully deployed into two complex libraries which were heavily using Outcome v1. Lots of bug fixes and maturity has resulted, and if you were holding off on deploying Outcome into your own code until now, now is the time! The code itself is now ready for a second Boost peer review, it has all the same testing that v1 had, and I am highly confident as to its quality. What solely remains before Outcome v2 can reenter the Boost peer review queue for a second review is the documentation which remains parlous (and any help with it is greatly appreciated!), and the "Boostification" cronjob script as the peer review wants a "pure Boost" submission. I am also going to have to fix a number of bugs in Standardese the documentation tool first, it currently segfaults when fed the Outcome headers :). @foonathan's tool shows lots of promise, it does far better with C++ 17 than doxygen, just need to shave off some rough edges in the tool. What comes before that though is writing a WG21 paper P0762R0 summarising the Boost peer review which led to the stripped down, barebones v2 `result<T, E>` design and the rationale for the design deviations from `expected<T, E>` as according to the Boost peer review feedback. If WG21 feel warm feelings about a `std::result<T, E>` after reading P0762R0, then I will prepare a formal standardisation proposal for the Library Evolution Working Group (LEWG) and get the ball rolling for standardisation by attending meetings from 2018 onwards until it's through. I'll announce any draft D0762R0 here when it's ready for people to comment and give feedback on soon. My thanks to everyone here on Reddit, on boost-dev, on SG14 low latency, and privately who have helped out with testing, documentation, and so much more in making this library happen. I know those coming from Rust-land feel amazement how long it has taken C++ to replicate Rust's `Result<T, E>`, but I'm very sure ours is enormously superior to theirs already simply by doing so much less because it doesn't need to. Taking time to get design **right** is one of the big things which continues to separate C++ from the upstart systems programming languages. Long may it continue! --- context --- Outcome provides a C++ 14 STL-quality `result<T, EC>` and an `outcome<T, EC, E>` implementation of success|failure value transports, and is expected to pass a second Boost peer review and be submitted for C++ standardisation as the lowest level of an overall framework as proposed by: - http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0650r0.pdf C++ Monadic interface - http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0323r2.pdf A proposal to add a utility class to represent expected object (Revision 4) The idea is that result/outcome are the extremely lightweight struct-like success|failure value transports suitable for usage in public APIs, whereas expected is the much richer variant-like monadic success|failure value transports, and everything participates together under P0650R0. Outcome is a pure header only library with no dependencies. It works best with C++ 17 and Concepts enabled, but can work with C++ 14 on these compilers or better: - clang 4.0 (5.0 required for Windows) - GCC 7 (VS2017 Update 3 RTM is supposed to work too according to Microsoft, my thanks to them for swiftly fixing the several ICEs I reported) Github: https://github.com/ned14/outcome Docs (highly incomplete): https://ned14.github.io/outcome/ Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

2 4

Boost 1.65.0 Beta 1
by Marshall Clow 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

Boost release 1.65.0 beta 1 is now available at: <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/beta/1.65.0.beta.1/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: d54d29568c4e4933cbfe40a292b6cb84a7f68121e34f6a83f7d0f7c652b6b2d8 boost_1_65_0_beta1.7z 092676557513e992347d30dd0cd058fb8af2a401e5da4f4413f5b577852d726b boost_1_65_0_beta1.tar.bz2 31fa3c807e2205e18f7d5c74f77f540677f7b0937af1e37f595c137e1e87bf84 boost_1_65_0_beta1.tar.gz 83c8d8b76fa9591572226a1a49fd191d76db3011b52b907cbbc8d37d46213bd2 boost_1_65_0_beta1.zip Please download the beta, give it a try, and report any problems you encounter. Thanks, -- The Boost Release Team

6 8

[Boost] file transfer
by vikram.smvdu 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

I recently started learning asio. Documentation is very awesome. I am planing to make a server where there is a file base. And client can login or connect and access the file.. is this possible. I am unable to send data from client to server.. server can sent but vise versa is not implemented by me.. i am trying.. if any body can point me a direction.. it will be much helpful Thank you Regards V Sent from Samsung Mobile

2 1

[BB++] 5 minutes long documentary
by Phil Bouchard 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

Like I promised, here's a 5 minutes long documentary on BB++: https://youtu.be/vXmddU_FS30 Regards, -Phil

2 3

CMake and Boost Build tests
by Edward Diener 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

Following John Maddock's appeal for practical solutions related to the move to CMake, I would like to know what the CMake equivalent is to the Boost Build unit test functionality. In other words what do I write for CMake in order to do a Boost Build compile, compile-fail, link, link-fail, run, and run-fail unit tests ? Does CMake have an equivalent to the Boost Build alias rule ? or the Boost Build project rule ? The great majority of the Boost libraries are header-only libraries where Boost Build is used to run the unit tests and, optionally, Boost Build is used to build the documentation using a quickbook, boostbook, doxygen toolset to generate html and pdf files. While I realize that building a Boost library, and making that built library available to end-users via CMake, has been the focus of most of the discussion so far regarding CMake and Boost, I am assuming the move to CMake also means that running unit tests and building docs where applicable must also be done through CMake. If I am wrong about this then I personally will be only too happy to continue using Boost Build to do these things.

14 47

[GitHub] Can boostorg/do-not-use be safely deleted?
by Louis Dionne 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

We have this repository: https://github.com/boostorg/do-not-use. The description says Permissions experiments; will disappear without notice. I'd like to confirm that this can safely be removed before I go do it. Louis -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/GitHub-Can-boostorg-do-not-use-be-safely… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

5 4

Dependency report
by Peter Dimov 31 Jul '17

31 Jul '17

I haven't run one of these in a while, so here it is. http://pdimov.com/tmp/report-develop-6db78a0a6/module-overview.html http://pdimov.com/tmp/report-develop-6db78a0a6/module-levels.html http://pdimov.com/tmp/report-develop-6db78a0a6/module-weights.html We have one "supermodule" at level 5 and another at level 13.

7 33

Boost tests with cmake
by paul 30 Jul '17

30 Jul '17

Hi, So, I have made a small demo setting up the tests with cmake, here: https://github.com/pfultz2/boost-cmake-demo/tree/bcm-test-demo This builds and tests the libraries for Boost.System, so it includes: * assert * config * core * predef * static_assert * system * winapi There are no tests for winapi right now, because I don't have a windows machine to test on(but I suppose I could've tested with mingw). This uses the BCM modules to provide common functionality for building and tests. All the tests are setup to run through CTest, and some targets are provided for building the tests. A `tests` target will build(but not run) all the tests. The `check` target will build and run all tests. Since we do want to filter tests by library, all tests are added with the label of the project name(which can be filtered with `ctest -L <label>`). Furthermore there are targets `tests-<project-name>` and `check-<project- name>` that will build and test a single project respectively. So if we are only interested in the tests for `boost_assert` we can run: cmake --build . --target check-boost_assert And this will build and test `boost_assert`. Any feedback will be useful as we move forward on adding the rest of the tests to cmake. Paul

7 20

boost::asio::async_read loops infinite with zero byte of received data
by Shailendra kumar 30 Jul '17

30 Jul '17

Hi, I am new to this community, hope I am not breaking any rule by this mail. I am facing some issue using asio async_read . Please help. I am sharing the link of the question shared at stackoverflow. https://stackoverflow.com/q/45358908/5649379 Please help Thanks Shailendra kumar

2 1

How to resolve connection via route in proxy server?
by jupiter 30 Jul '17

30 Jul '17

Hi, I can use boost to query and to resolve TCP connection from a remote server which has a public IP address: boost::asio::ip::tcp::resolver::query query(host, port); resolver.async_resolve(query, boost::bind(&ConnectionClient::handleResolve, this, boost::asio::placeholders::error, boost::asio::placeholders::iterator)); But how can I connect to the remote server which does not have a public IP address, I have to connect it via route from a proxy server public IP address? Thank you. Kind regards.

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost tests with cmake
by Rene Rivera 29 Jul '17

29 Jul '17

Accidentally replied to the wrong target.. Putting it back on dev list.. On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:27 PM, P F <pfultz2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:22 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:01 PM, P F <pfultz2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Jul 28, 2017, at 7:25 PM, Rene Rivera via Boost < >> boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: >> > >> > The predef script is incorrect. This < >> > https://github.com/pfultz2/boost-cmake-demo/blob/bcm-test- >> demo/libs/predef/test/CMakeLists.txt#L25> >> > is not equivalent to the original < >> > https://github.com/pfultz2/boost-cmake-demo/blob/bcm-test- >> demo/libs/predef/test/build.jam#L60>. >> > As the "-DCHECK_VALUE=true" is not passed to compiler in response to the >> > evaluation of '"BOOST_COMP_CLANG > 0.0.0" "BOOST_OS_LINUX == 0"'. It >> needs >> > to try to compile and run one of the programs from here < >> > https://github.com/pfultz2/boost-cmake-demo/tree/bcm-test- >> demo/libs/predef/tools/check>. >> > The test is verifying that both this < >> > https://github.com/pfultz2/boost-cmake-demo/blob/bcm-test- >> demo/libs/predef/tools/check/predef.jam> >> > and this < >> > https://github.com/pfultz2/boost-cmake-demo/blob/bcm-test- >> demo/libs/predef/tools/check/predef_check.h> >> > work as expected. For cmake you would need still need to test the >> latter, >> > still. >> >> Yes, I need to add a custom function `predef_check` in cmake to support >> this, > > > Right. > > >> although it would be best to do the detection directly in cmake rather >> than through the running the tool > > > Not sure what you mean by that. > > > Because when cross compiling you can’t always run the executable, and > using a host compiler seems it would be give different results than the > target compiler. However, a preprocessor expression can be evaluated > through cmake’s try compile, which will safely work with cross compiling. > Perhaps this is what bjam’s rule does already. > Sorry.. I misspoke. They are compile checks, not run checks. If the compile succeeds (of one of the "predef_check_cc_as_*.*") it needs to add the "-DCHECK_VALUE=true" to the compile and run of "check_value.cpp". But the test data in this case would also need to change if you are going to use a try-compile target. As the b2 code parses out those strings and reformulates them as a -DCHECK=.. compile option. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

1 0

[concurrent] Fast, lock-based queue implementation
by David Stone 29 Jul '17

29 Jul '17

I have written a new concurrent queue that has a focus on high throughput. You can check it out here: https://github.com/davidstone/concurrent-queue Some highlights of this queue: * The bulk interface is faster than other queues for many common load patterns * Almost any element type is supported with very few requirements * Supports any number of producers * Supports any number of consumers (although it works best with only one) * Can dynamically grow and shrink in memory as needed * The interface allows for very little undefined behavior: for the most part, as long as your special member functions like move constructors do not reference the queue you are inserting into, you are fine * Interface based on the pattern of moving values in and returning values via return, rather than other queues which use reference output parameters * Header-only * Design should be fairly straightforward to verify for correctness * Compiles warning free with a very high warning level on gcc and clang * Does not have any errors under ubsan, asan, or tsan I would like to submit this for inclusion in Boost if people find it interesting and useful, but first I would like to get some feedback on the design, implementation, documentation, tests, etc. I have tested this exact version on Gentoo Linux under clang 4.0 and gcc 6.3.0. I will be testing out Visual Studio 2015 and 2017 in the near future to ensure there have not been any regressions. I have run fundamentally the same queue on Visual Studio 2012 (no longer supported due to C++14 features), Visual Studio 2015 (Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2012), gcc 4.9.1 (Red Hat 6 under developer toolset 3), gcc 4.9.2 (Red Hat 7), and clang 3.9.0 (Red Hat 7) for several years now with no issues, so it is a fairly mature design.

2 4

Documentation snapshot not cycling
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 28 Jul '17

28 Jul '17

Hi, Looks like the documentation snapshot for develop http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/develop/ was last updated five days ago. Any chance this can be given a rebuild? Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz

3 3

[optional] Suggestion for adding an optional_number class
by Viktor Sehr 28 Jul '17

28 Jul '17

I'd like to make a suggestion for adding an optional class for number types, called optional_number, where the max value of the number type is utilized as the uninitalized value. Differences compared to std::optional<int, float, enum etc>: *- No size overhead from the wrapped type* - Theoretically faster (althrough in practice probably negilble) - Can be assigned to any value except the max value - Operator-> is removed as it does not make sense for an integer Notes: - Throws if assigned the numeric_limits<T>::max - Also works with enums, using the underlying_type - The operator bool conversion is missing in the prototype implementation Attaching a prototype implementation (currently for C++14). /Viktor

5 8

Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
by David Sankel 27 Jul '17

27 Jul '17

Howdy all, This is a request for comments on a possible path for migrating Boost's build system to CMake. I am not speaking for the Boost Program Committee here, but I plan on bringing this up with them after getting feedback. The motivation is simple. CMake is currently the dominant player in the area of open-source, cross-platform, C++ build-systems. I make this claim based on Google trends graphs and discussions with others at the conferences I attend (CppCon, C++Now, and ISO C++ meetings). If we make Boost buildable and usable out-of-the-box with CMake, we would significantly lower the barriers to entry for both Boost users and new Boost developers. Boost serves the greater C++ community and making Boost more accessible would be of great utility. * To ease the migration path, both Boost.Build (the current jam-based build system) and CMake will be supported for a time. * Boost sources would provide a compatible, drop-in replacement for the 'FindBoost' module that is distributed with CMake. A CMake-based application could point to it and, instead of using the system Boost libraries, Boost targets would be built from source as part of the user build. * The built Boost **binaries** would also provide a compatible, drop-in replacement for the 'FindBoost' module distributed with CMake. The behavior is similar to the previous bullet, except the built binaries would be used instead of the source code. * The style of the 'CMakeLists.txt' files would follow current best practice. We'd resist the temptation to write macros which replace the core CMake functions. There would be repetition in the files, to be sure, but I think we should avoid attempting to innovate CMake. I've seen this fail on many occasions and would like to keep our goal focused, at this point, on migrating Boost to CMake. In the future we could revisit this. * There would be a list of CMake guidelines that we'd use. * Boost libraries should be buildable in isolation and use 'find_package(Boost...)' to discover their Boost dependencies. * We would work with CMake towards eventually taking over maintenance of the FindBoost module distributed with CMake. I see this progressing with several milestones. 1. Release of a CMake-buildable Boost and the CMake conventions. In this stage each Boost library can be built in isolation or with the entire distribution and all the 'FindBoost' functionality mentioned above would be incorporated. 2. The unit tests for all Boost libraries are incorporated into CTest (the CMake unit test orchestration tools). 3. The Boost infrastructure is modified to use CTest for unit testing. 4. Unit testing functionality is removed from Boost.Build. 5. Boost.Build is removed. Although there are many other great ideas floating around (e.g. modularization of Boost, Boost-Classic, and Boost2), I'd like to keep this focused on CMakification of Boost because I think it is something that would have big impact and is small enough to be doable. One question that is going to come up is "who is going to do all this work?". Once we decide on a direction, I don't foresee a problem making this happen. Between volunteers, the importance this project has for companies, and the Steering Committee reserves, we should have the resources necessary. Another concern is that some authors may resist. Authors have a lot of leeway when it comes to how they maintain their libraries, what conventions they use, and backwards compatibility concerns. However, there are some things that authors need to conform to, such as our current Boost.Build build and testing infrastructure. I liken this to the development of a city: building developers can make their buildings however they want, but the streets, which control transit between buildings, are centrally regulated. Thanks for your consideration. -- David Sankel

29 140

PGI C++ compiler support
by David Olsen 27 Jul '17

27 Jul '17

Many years ago, Boost was configured to work well with the PGI C++ compiler (http://www.pgroup.com/) But maintenance of the PGI support within Boost stopped about five years ago, and PGI will no longer build Boost without modifications to the Boost sources. I am working on restoring support for the PGI C++ compiler. Many PGI customers want to use Boost, so we at PGI are putting in the effort to make that easy to do. I have already fixed a bunch of bugs in the PGI compiler that were triggered by Boost code. Now it is time to make necessary adjustments to the Boost source. I have created six pull requests that make it possible to build Boost with PGI. https://github.com/boostorg/build/pull/218 https://github.com/boostorg/filesystem/pull/49 https://github.com/boostorg/mpl/pull/30 https://github.com/boostorg/spirit/pull/236 https://github.com/boostorg/type_traits/pull/45 https://github.com/boostorg/config/pull/169 The only big change is overhauling the pgi.jam file. The other changes are just removing an obsolete #if or changing an #if expression. None of the changes should affect any compiler other than PGI. Next I am planning to make any necessary changes to test code and to header-only libraries so that PGI gets decent results when running the Boost tests. Then I will look into setting up a test bot for the PGI compiler here at PGI. -- David Olsen (dolsen(a)nvidia.com) NVIDIA - PGI Beaverton, Oregon

5 6

[type_erasure] link to any_cast reference section
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 27 Jul '17

27 Jul '17

Hi, Unlike most classes/functions in Boost.TypeErasure, the following http://www.boost.org/doc/html/boost/type_erasure/any_cast.html does not go to the reference for boost::type_erasure::any_cast, the proper link being http://www.boost.org/doc/html/boost/type_erasure/any_cast_idp758556752.html Problem is this seemingly autogenerated file name is unstable. For instance, for Boost 1.63 the link was http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_63_0/doc/html/boost/type_erasure/any_cast_i… in develop it is http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/develop/doc/html/boost/type_erasure/any_cast_… and in master it is http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/doc/html/boost/type_erasure/any_cast_i… which makes it impossible to refer to this section of Boost.TypeErasure documentation from other pages. Maybe this can be fixed? Thank you Joaquín M López Muñoz

2 5

[review][mp11] Formal review of Mp11
by Bjorn Reese 27 Jul '17

27 Jul '17

The formal review of Peter Dimov's Mp11 library is scheduled for July 15 - July 24, 2017 [1]. Mp11 is a C++11 metaprogramming library for compile-time manipulation of data structures that contain types. It’s based on template aliases and variadic templates and implements the approach outlined in the article "Simple C++ metaprogramming" [2] and its sequel [3]. These articles are useful background information for the review. * Mp11 aims to make simple usage simple, and to support complex usage without complicating the simple use cases. * Mp11 works on any type-list, whether its own type-list mp_list, or standard type-lists such as std::tuple and std::variant, or user-defined type-lists. * Mp11 works with any meta-function, such as C++11 or Boost type-traits, or user-defined type-traits. Mp11 can be found here: * Documentation: https://rawgit.com/pdimov/mp11/master/doc/html/mp11.html * Source code: https://github.com/pdimov/mp11/tree/master Please answer the following questions in your review [4]: 1. Should Mp11 be accepted into Boost? Please state all conditions for acceptance explicity. 2. What is your evaluation of the design? 3. What is your evaluation of the implementation? 4. What is your evaluation of the documentation? 5. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? 6. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? 7. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? 8. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? [1] http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html [2] http://pdimov.com/cpp2/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming.html [3] http://pdimov.com/cpp2/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming_2.html [4] http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html

18 56

[Signals2] library fails to compile with -fno-exceptions
by Jackie Kay 26 Jul '17

26 Jul '17

The signals2 Git repo does not have issues enabled, so I thought I'd ping the list about this. Trying to compile any program that includes boost/signals2 with -fno-exceptions fails as of 1.64: #include <boost/signals2.hpp> // boost/signals2/slot.hpp will also reproduce the error int main() { } g++ prog.cc -I<path to Boost 1.64.0 headers> -std=c++11 -fno-exceptions View it on Wandbox: https://wandbox.org/permlink/vZVpF5bb8E9K7sDz I was also able to reproduce this locally on the develop branch. It appears this is because the slot_base lock function is not defined when exceptions are disabled, but this is not checked when it lock is called in `slot_template.hpp`. I am working on a fix, but I would like to know what the path moving forward for the fix would be. Signals2 is currently unusable in 1.64 with exceptions turned off.

1 0

Separate Boost CMake mailing list
by Edward Diener 25 Jul '17

25 Jul '17

I think that a separate Boost CMake mailing list would be beneficial, rather than have all the discussion about the move to CMake, as the default Boost build system, as well as further uses of CMake with Boost libraries and tools, on the developers mailing list. This is similar to the way that Boost currently has a separate mailing list for Boost Build.

5 8

Mp11 review
by paul 25 Jul '17

25 Jul '17

Hi, this is my review of mp11. Please answer the following questions in your review [4]: > 1. Should Mp11 be accepted into Boost? Please state all conditions > for acceptance explicity. Yes Mp11 should be Accepted. > > 2. What is your evaluation of the design? Very good design overall. I don't know if I really like the `mp_` prefix. Trailing underscores is common in boost, but the mp prefix makes sense for standardization. It uses the `std::integral_constant`, but it might be nice to use another implementation, as that can help make it consistent between C++11 and C++14. Also, providing an integral constant with operators could help improve interoperability with hana-style metaprogramming(which also help interoperate with the Fit library as well). Of course, I don't know if mp11 is right place for it. It seems it would be better to have a separate library for this and the other C+14 features as well. Also why is `mp_with_index` only constexpr on C++14 and higher? > > 3. What is your evaluation of the implementation? The implementation seems to be good and provides competive performance with other metaprogramming libraries, but I do wonder if some of Odin's metaprogramming techniques(such as recursive aliases) can be used to improve the performance as well. > > 4. What is your evaluation of the documentation? Very well documented and organized. > > 5. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? I think this library can be very useful for C++11 metaprogramming where I have needed. I don't think it would be as useful for the Fit and Tick library because they still target gcc 4.6, which mp11 doesn't support due to being based around template aliases. > > 6. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have > any problems? Yes, I did, and also ran the tests. I tried to run the tests on some configurations that aren't ran in the travis CI(like clang 3.5 with C++14). And all the tests do pass. > > 7. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick > reading? In-depth study? I spent a couple hours reviewing, and I have implement ad-hoc versions of these in my own libraries as well. Paul

1 0

[review][mp11] Reminder of ongoing formal review
by Bjorn Reese 25 Jul '17

25 Jul '17

The formal review of Mp11 continues until (and including) Monday, July 24th. There have been four formal reviews so far. I would like to ask the Boost community for two favours: 1. Please postpone the discussions about CMake and the future directions of Boost until the formal review has ended. 2. Please review the Mp11 library instead. If you disagree with any of the above, please contact me off-list. Here is the call for review once more: The formal review of Peter Dimov's Mp11 library is scheduled for July 15 - July 24, 2017 [1]. Mp11 is a C++11 metaprogramming library for compile-time manipulation of data structures that contain types. It’s based on template aliases and variadic templates and implements the approach outlined in the article "Simple C++ metaprogramming" [2] and its sequel [3]. These articles are useful background information for the review. * Mp11 aims to make simple usage simple, and to support complex usage without complicating the simple use cases. * Mp11 works on any type-list, whether its own type-list mp_list, or standard type-lists such as std::tuple and std::variant, or user-defined type-lists. * Mp11 works with any meta-function, such as C++11 or Boost type-traits, or user-defined type-traits. Mp11 can be found here: * Documentation: https://rawgit.com/pdimov/mp11/master/doc/html/mp11.html * Source code: https://github.com/pdimov/mp11/tree/master Please answer the following questions in your review [4]: 1. Should Mp11 be accepted into Boost? Please state all conditions for acceptance explicity. 2. What is your evaluation of the design? 3. What is your evaluation of the implementation? 4. What is your evaluation of the documentation? 5. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? 6. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? 7. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? 8. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? [1] http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html [2] http://pdimov.com/cpp2/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming.html [3] http://pdimov.com/cpp2/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming_2.html [4] http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html

7 12

[review][mp11] Review of Mp11 has ended
by Bjorn Reese 25 Jul '17

25 Jul '17

The review of Mp11 has ended with a total of 12 formal reviews (and one pending.) I would like to thank all who have participated in the review, as well as those who agreed to postpone CMake discussions until the end of the review. The review report will be posted in the near future.

1 0