October 2020 - Boost - lists.stage.boost.cppalliance.org

CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
by Jon Kalb 13 Aug '24

13 Aug '24

The libraries produced by the Boost community have had a greater impact on the way that the C++ community writes code than any other library implementation. The focus of the Boost community will always be on the libraries, but it is undeniable that we are dependent on and often limited by the infrastructure of our trade. Years ago, the move to Git was contentious; yet, it was required to improve development. In a similar vein our build system has become an impediment for many developers and users, existing and prospective. Therefore, we, the Steering Committee, announce to the Boost community our desire and intent to move Boost’s build system to CMake for users and developers alike. We are soliciting comments and proposals from the community to guide the process and the goals. Our desire is that the community can come to consensus by the end of the calendar year with a vision of supporting users and developers. We understand that the actual process of achieving the end goal will be long, time consuming, and not without its share of conflict. We also recognize that the Boost community is comprised of bright and passionate individuals that are eager to get involved and help get work done. The members of the Steering Committee have been encouraged by the discussions and activity surrounding CMake on the mailing lists over the years and know that many people have voiced visions. We hope that each of you rejoins the discussion to support this initiative and contributes to the common goal of improving Boost’s integration into the broader C++ ecosystem. For the Boost Steering Committee, Jon Kalb, Chair jonkalb(a)boost.org

49 199

Boost.Text is looking for a (mini-)review manager
by Zach Laine 07 Dec '22

07 Dec '22

I've made all the recommended changes to Boost.Text that came up in the review. Glen, the previous review manager, recommended a mini review of Boost.Text once I'd made those changes. If you'd like to manage the mini-review, please let me know. For everyone, including potential reviewers and review managers, here are the major changes: * All the specific review feedback issues have been addressed. * The string layer is now gone. * The text layer got a major re-work. It is now a set of template-based adaptors (basic_text<>, vs. a text typedef. etc.), which lets everyone get what they want. You can change the underlying storage type (including whatever allocator you prefer), select UTF-8 or UTF-16, and change the normalization form. Glen recommended I drop this layer, but the library is way less useful without this stuff, and these changes address all the concerns raised about the text layer in the review. The updated docs can be found here: https://tzlaine.github.io/text/doc/html/index.html Oh yeah, and I added concept constraints to the whole library when you build in C++20 mode. Zach

17 46

[review][JSON] Review of JSON starts today: Sept 14 - Sept 23
by Pranam Lashkari 09 Aug '22

09 Aug '22

Boost formal review of Vinnie Falco and Krystian Stasiowski's library JSON starts today and will run for 10 days ending on 23 Sept 2020. Both of these authors have already developed a couple of libraries which are accepted in Boost(boost beast and Static String) This library focuses on a common and popular use-case for JSON. It provides a container to hold parsed and serialised JSON types. It provides more flexibility and better benchmark performance than its competitors. JSON highlights the following features in the documentation: - Fast compilation - Require only C++11 - Fast streaming parser and serializer - Easy and safe API with allocator support - Constant-time key lookup for objects - Options to allow non-standard JSON - Compile without Boost, define BOOST_JSON_STANDALONE - Optional header-only, without linking to a library (a point I would like to add in highlight: it has cool Jason logo 😝) To quickly understand and get the flavour of the library take a look at "Quick Look" <http://master.json.cpp.al/json/usage/quick_look.html> You can find the source code to be reviewed here: <https://github.com/CPPAlliance/json/tree/master> You can find the latest documentation here: <http://master.json.cpp.al/> Benchmarks are also given in the document which can be found here: <http://master.json.cpp.al/json/benchmarks.html> Some people have also given the early reviews, the thread can be found here: <https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2020/09/249745.php> Please provide in your review information you think is valuable to understand your choice to ACCEPT or REJECT including JSON as a Boost library. Please be explicit about your decision (ACCEPT or REJECT). Some other questions you might want to consider answering: - What is your evaluation of the design? - What is your evaluation of the implementation? - What is your evaluation of the documentation? - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? - Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you have any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? More information about the Boost Formal Review Process can be found here: <http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html> Thank you for your effort in the Boost community. -- Thank you, Pranam Lashkari, https://lpranam.github.io/

21 73

Adding my sorting algorithm, ska_sort, to boost, attempt 2
by Malte Skarupke 24 Nov '21

24 Nov '21

Hi everyone, I started a discussion about this in October, but at the time the maintainer of the sort library was busy, then I was busy, so now it's January... I wrote a generalized version of radix sort a couple years ago and gave a talk about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqs87a_7zxw I would like to get a new version of that sorting algorithm into boost. It's faster than what I showed several years ago. It's also even more general and has a new interface that should be easier to extend. I uploaded the code here: https://github.com/skarupke/sort/tree/master The documentation is also already updated with new benchmark results. Let me know what's required to get this into boost. Would you like this in the form of a pull request? One of the big things that probably needs review is the interface, since radix sorting works differently than comparison based sorting. For most normal uses you just need to provide a sort key, but more complicated cases can get more complicated. I tried very hard to make everything easy, but I'd also be curious if others can come up with better ways of doing the interface. Thanks, Malte -- Malte Skarupke malteskarupke(a)fastmail.fm

8 10

[1.75 release] Merging 'develop' to 'master' for Embarcadero fix
by Edward Diener 06 Nov '20

06 Nov '20

A number of libraries have my PR to enable Embarcadero C++ clang-based compilers for Boost in their 'develop' branch but the branch has not been merged to 'master' for the 1.75 release. In the large majority of cases my PR for Embarcadero is the only difference between 'develop' and 'master'. These libraries are: assign circular_buffer container_hash date_time foreach graph iostreams numeric_conversion optional pool ptr_container random static_assert thread typeof units unordered If any of the maintainers of these libraries could see fit to get my PR in 'master' from 'develop' for the 1.75 release, it would be appreciated. I can assert that the PR causes no problems in the 'develop' regression tests for the aforementioned libraries. I have also opened up an issue for each of the aforementioned libraries in their Github page regarding my request.

7 18

1.75 schedule reminder
by Peter Dimov 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

A reminder that Oct 21 was the cutoff date for new library additions, and the upcoming deadlines are - Oct 28: Boost 1.75.0 closed for major changes - Nov 4: Boost 1.75.0 closed for beta - Nov 11: Boost 1.75.0 beta - Dec 2: Boost 1.75.0 closed for release - Dec 9: Boost 1.75.0 release (See the calendar at https://www.boost.org/development/index.html.)

5 4

sticky question regarding boost rational
by Robert Ramey 02 Nov '20

02 Nov '20

boost rational is tripping up one of my examples in safe numerics: // solution: use safe integer in rational definition using safe_rational = boost::rational< boost::safe_numerics::safe<int> >; // use rationals created with safe_t const safe_rational sc {1, std::numeric_limits<int>::max()}; std::cout << "c = " << sc << std::endl; const safe_rational sd {1, 2}; std::cout << "d = " << sd << std::endl; std::cout << "c * d = "; try { // multiply them. This will overflow std::cout << sc * sd << std::endl; // use of overload operator * is ambiguous. rational.hpp contains - among other things, the following definitions for the * operator: template <class IntType, class Arg> BOOST_CXX14_CONSTEXPR inline typename boost::enable_if_c < rational_detail::is_compatible_integer<Arg, IntType>::value || is_same<rational<IntType>, Arg>::value, rational<IntType> >::type operator * (const rational<IntType>& a, const Arg& b) { rational<IntType> t(a); return t *= b; } template <class Arg, class IntType> BOOST_CXX14_CONSTEXPR inline typename boost::enable_if_c < rational_detail::is_compatible_integer<Arg, IntType>::value, rational<IntType> >::type operator * (const Arg& b, const rational<IntType>& a) { rational<IntType> t(a); return t *= b; } Soooooo - it seems that sc * sd will match both of the above definitions. Its unclear what the purpose of these two different overloads are. They look pretty similar to me. the definition for is_compatible_integer. namespace rational_detail{ template <class FromInt, class ToInt, typename Enable = void> struct is_compatible_integer; template <class FromInt, class ToInt> struct is_compatible_integer<FromInt, ToInt, typename enable_if_c<!is_array<FromInt>::value>::type> { BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, value = ((std::numeric_limits<FromInt>::is_specialized && std::numeric_limits<FromInt>::is_integer && (std::numeric_limits<FromInt>::digits <=std::numeric_limits<ToInt>::digits) && (std::numeric_limits<FromInt>::radix == std::numeric_limits<ToInt>::radix) && ((std::numeric_limits<FromInt>::is_signed == false) || (std::numeric_limits<ToInt>::is_signed == true)) && is_convertible<FromInt, ToInt>::value) || is_same<FromInt, ToInt>::value) || (is_class<ToInt>::value && is_class<FromInt>::value && is_convertible<FromInt, ToInt>::value)); }; ... In fact, since it looks like if FromInt and ToInt are the same types (as they are in my case, one will always got more than one match. Is anyone (John Maddock - where are you?) able to shed some light on this for me? Robert Ramey

2 1

Compile failure in boost.signals2 with latest clang, c++20 and libc++
by Richard Hodges 31 Oct '20

31 Oct '20

Details in the linked issue: https://github.com/boostorg/signals2/issues/46 -- Richard Hodges

1 0

[Algorithm] Implementing: Find Longest Palindromic Substring(Sub-vector).
by Kanishk 31 Oct '20

31 Oct '20

Hello all, I'm new to the Boost community and this is my first time posting to the mailing group. What brought me here: I'm a Computer Science student and I often have to code up string/sequence related algorithms. An algorithm that I found was missing from the boost libraries was "Find Longest Palindromic Substring(or generic Sub-vector)". Boost has *is_palindrome *( https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_66_0/boost/algorithm/is_palindrome.hpp) but using that to check every possible substring will result in an O(N^3) runtime. It is trivial to implement an O(N^2) algorithm for this purpose using dynamic-programming. It is also possible to implement this in O(N) using the Manacher's algorithm ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_palindromic_substring#Manacher's_algorithm ). Will this be a useful addition to the Boost.Algorithm library? If so, I would love to start contributing to boost through this. Regards, Kanishk

1 0

[histogram][type_traits] strange compile error in boost.histogram for gcc-7.1+ with -std=c++17; possible bug in gcc?
by Hans Dembinski 30 Oct '20

30 Oct '20

Dear John and the other gurus, a strange bug was reported for Boost.Histogram. It is a difficult one for which I would like to ask for help. To me it looks like a bug in gcc. Here is the issue: https://github.com/boostorg/histogram/issues/290 And here is a link to reproduce it: https://godbolt.org/z/oK4866 The following innocent code compiled with gcc-7.1 or newer with -std=c++17 ``` #include <boost/type_traits/rank.hpp> #include <boost/histogram/axis/traits.hpp> int main() { return 0; } ``` produces this error message (excerpt): ``` cc1plus: error: return type specified for deduction guide In file included from <source>:2: /celibs/boost_1_74_0/boost/histogram/axis/traits.hpp:411:11: error: 'decl-specifier' in declaration of deduction guide 411 | constexpr unsigned rank(const Axis& axis) { | ^~~~~~~~ /celibs/boost_1_74_0/boost/histogram/axis/traits.hpp:411:1: error: 'decl-specifier' in declaration of deduction guide 411 | constexpr unsigned rank(const Axis& axis) { | ^~~~~~~~~ /celibs/boost_1_74_0/boost/histogram/axis/traits.hpp:411:11: error: 'unsigned' specified with 'rank<...auto...>' 411 | constexpr unsigned rank(const Axis& axis) { | ^~~~~~~~ /celibs/boost_1_74_0/boost/histogram/axis/traits.hpp:411:20: error: deduction guide for 'boost::rank<T>' must have trailing return type 411 | constexpr unsigned rank(const Axis& axis) { | ^~~~ In file included from <source>:1: /celibs/boost_1_74_0/boost/type_traits/rank.hpp:82:27: note: 'template<class T> struct boost::rank' declared here 82 | template <class T> struct rank : public integral_constant<std::size_t, (::boost::detail::rank_imp<T, 0>::value)>{}; | ^~~~ ``` gcc interprets my function called `rank` as a deduction guide for `boost::rank` in boost/type_traits/rank.hpp. It then continues to complain that this function does not look like a deduction guide. Well, it isn't one, duh. I can see nothing wrong with my code or the code in boost/type_traits, so my guess is a bug in gcc. If you all agree, I would report this. If this is really a bug in gcc, however, it exists since v7.1 all the way to gcc trunk. In either case, it would be great if we could use a workaround in Boost until that problem is fixed. I found a workaround is to replace line 82 in boost/type_traits/rank.hpp with: ``` template <class T> using rank = integral_constant<std::size_t, (::boost::detail::rank_imp<T, 0>::value)>; ``` This avoids the issue because now the struct ``rank`` is gone and therefore gcc does not try to find a deduction guide for it. Is there a better solution? Best regards, Hans

3 4