On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:29 AM Donovan Dikaio wrote:

Sorry, just missed the link: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:10 AM Donovan Dikaio wrote:

...

I can look into it. But needs to make the requirements clear.

So, the task is to show *C++ standard minimum level: C++nn* for Standard attribute for each lib in this page: C++ standard minimum level: C++nn ? And we could replace nn with the actual number by checking the *cxxstd* key in a library's meta info json file.

Please let me know if I got it right.

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:00 AM Louis Tatta wrote:

...

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Edward Diener via Boost Date: Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 7:39 PM Subject: [boost] Boost website changes and .'cxxstd' To: CC: Edward Diener

Even though I have worked a little with PHP in the past I do not have the talent to make the change to the website which would incorporate the addition of the meta information json field 'cxxstd' to the Boost documentation web page for each library. The idea is that if 'cxxstd' is set to a value the documentation for that library would also show:

C++ standard minimum level: C++nn

where nn would be 11, 14, 17, or 20 depending on the value of 'cxxstd'. Alternatively if there is no 'cxxstd' entry for a library or if the value of 'cxxstd' is '03', we could either specify 'nn' as '03' or leave off the line stating the 'C++ standard minimum level completely.

On the face of it this should be doable in the website code but evidently Daniel James is the only one who really understands how this works in the code and he is no longer active in Boost. So if someone else who understands the website code and PHP could do this it would be appreciated, since I think it will be valuable telling end-users whether a Boost library is usable at the C++ compiler level they are using.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Beta branch of the website has been updated. It shows the *C++ standard minimum level* just below *Standard* field with the value from *cxxstd* attribute if a valid one exists for a library. Please review and let me know your comments. On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:29 AM Donovan Dikaio wrote:

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:29 AM Donovan Dikaio wrote:

...

Sorry, just missed the link: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:10 AM Donovan Dikaio wrote:

...

I can look into it. But needs to make the requirements clear.

So, the task is to show *C++ standard minimum level: C++nn* for Standard attribute for each lib in this page: C++ standard minimum level: C++nn ? And we could replace nn with the actual number by checking the *cxxstd* key in a library's meta info json file.

Please let me know if I got it right.

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:00 AM Louis Tatta wrote:

...

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Edward Diener via Boost Date: Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 7:39 PM Subject: [boost] Boost website changes and .'cxxstd' To: CC: Edward Diener

Even though I have worked a little with PHP in the past I do not have the talent to make the change to the website which would incorporate the addition of the meta information json field 'cxxstd' to the Boost documentation web page for each library. The idea is that if 'cxxstd' is set to a value the documentation for that library would also show:

C++ standard minimum level: C++nn

where nn would be 11, 14, 17, or 20 depending on the value of 'cxxstd'. Alternatively if there is no 'cxxstd' entry for a library or if the value of 'cxxstd' is '03', we could either specify 'nn' as '03' or leave off the line stating the 'C++ standard minimum level completely.

On the face of it this should be doable in the website code but evidently Daniel James is the only one who really understands how this works in the code and he is no longer active in Boost. So if someone else who understands the website code and PHP could do this it would be appreciated, since I think it will be valuable telling end-users whether a Boost library is usable at the C++ compiler level they are using.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Am 29.12.20 um 18:44 schrieb Donovan Dikaio via Boost:

Beta branch of the website has been updated.

It shows the *C++ standard minimum level* just below *Standard* field with the value from *cxxstd* attribute if a valid one exists for a library. Is there a link with how it looks like with current develop branch?

BTW: Thanks for *not* showing anything when the cxxstd attribute does not exist. It was asked before to "assume C++03" in that case which I (repeatably) argued before is wrong as it tells users "it will work for you" when in fact it is missing any information and hence makes the "C++03" label pretty much worthless. If the maintainer cares he/she can now add the "03" to the library and be done. As special cases with Boost.Math came up: How about allowing a string value in the attribute so it can be e.g. "C++11 (mixed)" or something similar to hint that not everything will work with C++11 but that is the minimum supported level (note the "supported": C++03 might work but if it is untested it might as well not and hence doesn't belong here)

On Monday, January 4, 2021, Vinnie Falco wrote:

It looks like we have an open pull request to update the website to show this data - is there any progress on reviewing it?

I don't see any open PR: https://github.com/boostorg/website/pulls Glen

On 1/6/2021 2:00 PM, Donovan Dikaio via Boost wrote:

The updates to show "C++ standard minimum level" is just live here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/

Excellent ! Ideally if there is no 'cxxstd' json value, I think the "C++ standard minimum level" should say '03' rather than be left out completely. This will be incorrect for those libraries who have not yet merged the 'development' branch change for 'cxxstd' into 'master' yet. But once these libraries merge the change into their 'master' branch the correct "C++ standard minimum level" would then be shown for all libraries, and all libraries would have a "C++ standard minimum level" displayed, which I think is more consistent with what end-users would want to see. Yes, I could have created PRs for all the Boost C++03 minimum standard libraries also, like Alexander Grund suggested, but I thought that was too much work creating some 110 PRs or so for those libraries, so I only updated the libraries I maintained with a "cxxstd": "03" values. For the beta website we should probably use the 'develop' branch 'libraries.json' values for each library, and this would correctly show right now the correct "C++ standard minimum level" for those 25 libraries which have updated my PRs on their 'develop' branch for 'cxxstd'. But I understand that you have had problems getting the beta website to integrate your changes in its display.

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 1:44 AM Donovan Dikaio wrote:

...

Beta branch of the website has been updated.

It shows the *C++ standard minimum level* just below *Standard* field with the value from *cxxstd* attribute if a valid one exists for a library.

Please review and let me know your comments.

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:29 AM Donovan Dikaio wrote:

...

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:29 AM Donovan Dikaio wrote:

...

Sorry, just missed the link: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:10 AM Donovan Dikaio wrote:

...

I can look into it. But needs to make the requirements clear.

So, the task is to show *C++ standard minimum level: C++nn* for Standard attribute for each lib in this page: C++ standard minimum level: C++nn ? And we could replace nn with the actual number by checking the *cxxstd* key in a library's meta info json file.

Please let me know if I got it right.

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:00 AM Louis Tatta wrote:

...

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Edward Diener via Boost Date: Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 7:39 PM Subject: [boost] Boost website changes and .'cxxstd' To: CC: Edward Diener

Even though I have worked a little with PHP in the past I do not have the talent to make the change to the website which would incorporate the addition of the meta information json field 'cxxstd' to the Boost documentation web page for each library. The idea is that if 'cxxstd' is set to a value the documentation for that library would also show:

C++ standard minimum level: C++nn

where nn would be 11, 14, 17, or 20 depending on the value of 'cxxstd'. Alternatively if there is no 'cxxstd' entry for a library or if the value of 'cxxstd' is '03', we could either specify 'nn' as '03' or leave off the line stating the 'C++ standard minimum level completely.

On the face of it this should be doable in the website code but evidently Daniel James is the only one who really understands how this works in the code and he is no longer active in Boost. So if someone else who understands the website code and PHP could do this it would be appreciated, since I think it will be valuable telling end-users whether a Boost library is usable at the C++ compiler level they are using.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

On 1/6/2021 2:41 PM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 1:34 PM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

On 1/6/2021 2:00 PM, Donovan Dikaio via Boost wrote:

...

The updates to show "C++ standard minimum level" is just live here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/

Excellent !

Ideally if there is no 'cxxstd' json value, I think the "C++ standard minimum level" should say '03' rather than be left out completely. This will be incorrect for those libraries who have not yet merged the 'development' branch change for 'cxxstd' into 'master' yet. But once these libraries merge the change into their 'master' branch the correct "C++ standard minimum level" would then be shown for all libraries, and all libraries would have a "C++ standard minimum level" displayed, which I think is more consistent with what end-users would want to see.

Please do not do this. It would subvert the possible intent of libraries that do not wish to peg themselves at a particular C++ level. It would also likely show incorrrect information for the libraries that could be C++98 and have not gotten around to adding this field to reflect it as such.

If an end-user does not see a "C++ standard minimum level" for a library in the documentation what should he/she assume ? I would like to argue that it would be beneficial for end-users to see the C++ standard minimum level for all libraries, even for those which work at the C++98/03 level on up. I do not understand the purpose of a library which does not wish to peg itself at a particular minimum C++ level. A library could have 25 pieces of functionality, 5 of which work at the C++03 level, 5 of which work at the C++11 level, 5 of which work at the C++14 level, 5 of which work at the C++17 level, and 5 of which work at the C++20 level, but how likely is that and what good does it do to represent such a library as not having any C++ standard minimum level ? Specifying a C++ standard minimum level does not mean that there is not functionality in a library which might require a higher C++ standard level in order to work properly. We are just trying to give end-users an idea of the minimum C++ standard level needed to work with the majority of functionality in a Boost library. In particular specifying a C++ standard minimum level of '03' does not mean that there might be some functionality in the library which requires C++11 ( or higher ).

On 1/6/2021 3:10 PM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:02 PM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

If an end-user does not see a "C++ standard minimum level" for a library in the documentation what should he/she assume ?

They should *not* assume any particular level. And perhaps ask the author to indicate what the support is by filling GitHub issues.

The trouble with this is that there are about 110 libraries with no 'cxxstd' JSON attribute at all and we are asking programmers to go back to guessing what the C++ standard minimum level is for those libraries. I am really trying to give end-users information rather than going back to guessing or having to ask about it each time.

...

I would like to argue that it would be beneficial for end-users to see the C++ standard minimum level for all libraries, even for those which work at the C++98/03 level on up. I do not understand the purpose of a library which does not wish to peg itself at a particular minimum C++ level.

At least one library supports *any* C++ level. Even those before C++98. Please don't put a one dimensional straightjacket on this. What should such libraries do?

PS. That one library happens to be my library, Predef.

You added "cxxstd": "98" for predef. What is wrong with that ? It basically says "any" C++ level. I would also argue that "03" essentially say "any" C++ level, because how many programmers are using C++ before it was standardized and how many programmers can distinguish between C++98 and C++03 ? But I have no beef with "98" since that is what is there. You are arguing that showing nothing is somehow better than showing something, and I admit I do not see that.

On 1/6/2021 3:10 PM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:02 PM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

If an end-user does not see a "C++ standard minimum level" for a library in the documentation what should he/she assume ?

They should *not* assume any particular level. And perhaps ask the author to indicate what the support is by filling GitHub issues.

...

I would like to argue that it would be beneficial for end-users to see the C++ standard minimum level for all libraries, even for those which work at the C++98/03 level on up. I do not understand the purpose of a library which does not wish to peg itself at a particular minimum C++ level.

At least one library supports *any* C++ level. Even those before C++98. Please don't put a one dimensional straightjacket on this. What should such libraries do?

PS. That one library happens to be my library, Predef.

On second thought you are right and if there is no 'cxxstd' JSON attribute we should not be showing "C++ standard minimum level" information in the library docs.

Donovan Dikaio wrote:

The updates to show "C++ standard minimum level" is just live here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/

Looking at this, I think that we need to drop the "Standard" part. It's mostly empty, the places it says things like "TR1" aren't helpful, and it's easy to misinterpret it as the minimum required C++ level.

...

Looking at this, I think that we need to drop the "Standard" part. It's mostly empty, the places it says things like "TR1" aren't helpful, and it's easy to misinterpret it as the minimum required C++ level.

I fully agree. Also the top line which give different views of the library documentation can probably drop the "Standard Proposals" and "TR1 libraries" views, since these are really obsolete by now. Woops, also just seen that the text is to long. I see e.g. "C++ standard minimum lev11". Maybe just "Minimum C++ standard"? Or even "Min. C++ standard"?

On 1/7/2021 7:05 PM, Louis Tatta via Boost wrote:

Hello Edward,

I'm with the CPP Alliance. I'm working with Donovan to implement the Boost website changes and .'cxxstd'.

Reading the messages on the boost mailing list, we see some changes requested and some asking not to implement the change. Can be a bit confusing on what is needed or wanted.

Can we get a list of changes requested on the current implementation?

The initial change has been done correctly, which is to provide a "C++ standard minimum level" display field for each library which has its JSON field of "cxxstd" set to some value. I also have agreed with Peter Dimov's remark, which was also suggested earlier in this thread, that the "Standard" display field for each library should be removed, since it's meaning is obsolete and now also confusing. I have also suggested that if we are removing the "Standard" display field we should also remove the "Standard Proposals" and "TR1 libraries" sort categories, which are likewise obsolete. I personally think that since we now have a "C++ standard minimum level" display field it would also be nice to be able to have a sort category based on that display field called, let's say, "C++ Minimum".

Thank You Louis

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:16 PM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

On 1/6/2021 5:44 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

...

Donovan Dikaio wrote:

...

The updates to show "C++ standard minimum level" is just live here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/

Looking at this, I think that we need to drop the "Standard" part. It's mostly empty, the places it says things like "TR1" aren't helpful, and it's easy to misinterpret it as the minimum required C++ level.

I fully agree. Also the top line which give different views of the library documentation can probably drop the "Standard Proposals" and "TR1 libraries" views, since these are really obsolete by now.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

On 1/11/2021 6:40 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:

...

...

Can we get a list of changes requested on the current implementation?

The initial change has been done correctly, which is to provide a "C++ standard minimum level" display field for each library which has its JSON field of "cxxstd" set to some value. I also have agreed with Peter Dimov's remark, which was also suggested earlier in this thread, that the "Standard" display field for each library should be removed, since it's meaning is obsolete and now also confusing. I have also suggested that if we are removing the "Standard" display field we should also remove the "Standard Proposals" and "TR1 libraries" sort categories, which are likewise obsolete.

I personally think that since we now have a "C++ standard minimum level" display field it would also be nice to be able to have a sort category based on that display field called, let's say, "C++ Minimum".

Fully agreed.

And my remark was that (at least for me) "C++ standard minimum level" is to long and doesn't fully display on the website leading to "C++ standard minimum lev11" to be shown instead of  "C++ standard minimum level : 11"

I am good with changing that. Maybe just "C++ standard minimum". I am worried that if we just specify "C++ standard" or "C++ level" there will be programmers who think that if they see, let's say, "11" that they will not be able to use that library unless they are compiling with exactly C++11. I know that may sound ridiculous, but the less confusion the better.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:12 AM Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:

...

...

And my remark was that (at least for me) "C++ standard minimum level" is to long and doesn't fully display on the website leading to "C++ standard minimum lev11" to be shown instead of "C++ standard minimum level : 11"

I am good with changing that. Maybe just "C++ standard minimum". I am worried that if we just specify "C++ standard" or "C++ level" there will be programmers who think that if they see, let's say, "11" that they will not be able to use that library unless they are compiling with exactly C++11. I know that may sound ridiculous, but the less confusion the better. "Minimum C++ standard"?

I see that we're explicit about "C++" just in case people interpret it to mean the standards of the other programming languages we support. Glen

Hi Edward, Donovan has updated the website: Remove 'Standard' field from each library info Remove 'Standard Proposals' and 'TR1 libraries' from sort categories Add 'C++ Minimum' to sort categories Please let me know if you want any other changes. Thank You Louis On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 10:46 AM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

On 1/7/2021 7:05 PM, Louis Tatta via Boost wrote:

...

Hello Edward,

I'm with the CPP Alliance. I'm working with Donovan to implement the Boost website changes and .'cxxstd'.

Reading the messages on the boost mailing list, we see some changes requested and some asking not to implement the change. Can be a bit confusing on what is needed or wanted.

Can we get a list of changes requested on the current implementation?

The initial change has been done correctly, which is to provide a "C++ standard minimum level" display field for each library which has its JSON field of "cxxstd" set to some value. I also have agreed with Peter Dimov's remark, which was also suggested earlier in this thread, that the "Standard" display field for each library should be removed, since it's meaning is obsolete and now also confusing. I have also suggested that if we are removing the "Standard" display field we should also remove the "Standard Proposals" and "TR1 libraries" sort categories, which are likewise obsolete.

I personally think that since we now have a "C++ standard minimum level" display field it would also be nice to be able to have a sort category based on that display field called, let's say, "C++ Minimum".

...

Thank You Louis

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:16 PM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

On 1/6/2021 5:44 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

...

Donovan Dikaio wrote:

...

The updates to show "C++ standard minimum level" is just live here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/

Looking at this, I think that we need to drop the "Standard" part. It's mostly empty, the places it says things like "TR1" aren't helpful, and it's easy to misinterpret it as the minimum required C++ level.

I fully agree. Also the top line which give different views of the library documentation can probably drop the "Standard Proposals" and "TR1 libraries" views, since these are really obsolete by now.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes:

http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

...

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Hi Edward, I have added a secondary sort by library's name for libraries which have the same cxxstd value when sorting by 'C++ Minimum'. It's up and available now here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master?sort=cxxstd Please let me know if you have any more feedback. Thank you, Donovan On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:51 AM Louis Tatta wrote:

Hi Edward,

Donovan has updated the website: Remove 'Standard' field from each library info Remove 'Standard Proposals' and 'TR1 libraries' from sort categories Add 'C++ Minimum' to sort categories

Please let me know if you want any other changes.

Thank You Louis

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 10:46 AM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

On 1/7/2021 7:05 PM, Louis Tatta via Boost wrote:

...

Hello Edward,

I'm with the CPP Alliance. I'm working with Donovan to implement the Boost website changes and .'cxxstd'.

Reading the messages on the boost mailing list, we see some changes requested and some asking not to implement the change. Can be a bit confusing on what is needed or wanted.

Can we get a list of changes requested on the current implementation?

The initial change has been done correctly, which is to provide a "C++ standard minimum level" display field for each library which has its JSON field of "cxxstd" set to some value. I also have agreed with Peter Dimov's remark, which was also suggested earlier in this thread, that the "Standard" display field for each library should be removed, since it's meaning is obsolete and now also confusing. I have also suggested that if we are removing the "Standard" display field we should also remove the "Standard Proposals" and "TR1 libraries" sort categories, which are likewise obsolete.

I personally think that since we now have a "C++ standard minimum level" display field it would also be nice to be able to have a sort category based on that display field called, let's say, "C++ Minimum".

...

Thank You Louis

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:16 PM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

On 1/6/2021 5:44 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

...

Donovan Dikaio wrote:

...

The updates to show "C++ standard minimum level" is just live here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/

Looking at this, I think that we need to drop the "Standard" part.

It's

...

...

...

mostly empty, the places it says things like "TR1" aren't helpful, and it's easy to misinterpret it as the minimum required C++ level.

I fully agree. Also the top line which give different views of the library documentation can probably drop the "Standard Proposals" and "TR1 libraries" views, since these are really obsolete by now.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

I have added a secondary sort by library's name for libraries which have the same cxxstd value when sorting by 'C++ Minimum'.

It's up and available now here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master?sort=cxxstd I see the C++98 library at the bottom, which of course is correct from a literal sort. However my expectation would be to have that before 03. Also what about the libs with missing values? My expectation here would also be that they come afterwards (my first impression was that all values are missing)

What do others say? Also the length of the label is still an issue, see https://ibb.co/BPjT6z5 Besides that, great work, thanks!

Am 17.01.21 um 05:02 schrieb Louis Tatta:

Also the length of the label is still an issue, see https://ibb.co/BPjT6z5

...

Clearing browser cache will solve the length of the label issue.

I tried both using CTRL+F5 and fully clearing the Browser cache but neither changed anything. I noticed that it is only in Firefox not Chromium. So I checked the fonts: Firefox uses "DejaVu Sans" while Chromium uses "Liberation Sans" for the requested "sans-serif". (Using Linux Mint 20.1) Have you tested this on different browsers too and are you seeing the same?

On 1/20/2021 11:47 PM, Donovan Dikaio via Boost wrote:

Hi Edward,

I have updated the 'C++ Minimum' sort in the libraries page.

So the libs with 'cxxstd' values will appear first in the sort by 'C++ Minimum', and then the ones without the values sorted by their names.

I also increased the width of the ‘C++ Standard Minimum Level’ label in the new update. This may show up after clearing the browser cache.

Looks good, thank you ! I have slogged through the task of creating PRs for all Boost libraries, even the very many C++03 minimum standard libraries, so that each library would have a 'cxxstd' value in their JSON meta information. It is up to the various library maintainers if they want to accept the PR or not, and a great many of them already have. Hopefully the final result will be that all Boost libraries will show a ‘C++ Standard Minimum Level’ in the documentation page. For those libraries that do not want to show such information, and ignore my PR for that library, end-users can ask the library maintainer(s) directly what the C++ Standard Minimum Level" is through the libraries Github page. I do recall seeing somewhere in the Boost website an explanation of the meaning of the various fields shown for each library's documentation, but I can not recall where this is anymore. If such an explanation area still exists it would be nice adding to it some explanation about what the ‘C++ Standard Minimum Level’ field means, such as: "This information shows the minimum C++ standard compilation level needed to use the functionality of a Boost library. The library may still have some enhanced functionality which takes advantage of a higher C++ standard compilation level, but the end-user is asked to read the library's documentation to determine if that is the case. If no ‘C++ Standard Minimum Level’ exists for a library it is up to the end user to read the documentation, or communicate with the library's maintainer(s) through the library's Github page, to determine this information."

Thank you, Donovan

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:37 PM Donovan Dikaio wrote:

...

Hi Edward,

I have added a secondary sort by library's name for libraries which have the same cxxstd value when sorting by 'C++ Minimum'.

It's up and available now here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master?sort=cxxstd

Please let me know if you have any more feedback.

Thank you, Donovan

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:51 AM Louis Tatta wrote:

...

Hi Edward,

Donovan has updated the website: Remove 'Standard' field from each library info Remove 'Standard Proposals' and 'TR1 libraries' from sort categories Add 'C++ Minimum' to sort categories

Please let me know if you want any other changes.

Thank You Louis

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 10:46 AM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

On 1/7/2021 7:05 PM, Louis Tatta via Boost wrote:

...

Hello Edward,

I'm with the CPP Alliance. I'm working with Donovan to implement the Boost website changes and .'cxxstd'.

Reading the messages on the boost mailing list, we see some changes requested and some asking not to implement the change. Can be a bit confusing on what is needed or wanted.

Can we get a list of changes requested on the current implementation?

The initial change has been done correctly, which is to provide a "C++ standard minimum level" display field for each library which has its JSON field of "cxxstd" set to some value. I also have agreed with Peter Dimov's remark, which was also suggested earlier in this thread, that the "Standard" display field for each library should be removed, since it's meaning is obsolete and now also confusing. I have also suggested that if we are removing the "Standard" display field we should also remove the "Standard Proposals" and "TR1 libraries" sort categories, which are likewise obsolete.

I personally think that since we now have a "C++ standard minimum level" display field it would also be nice to be able to have a sort category based on that display field called, let's say, "C++ Minimum".

...

Thank You Louis

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:16 PM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

On 1/6/2021 5:44 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote: > Donovan Dikaio wrote: > >> The updates to show "C++ standard minimum level" is just live here: >> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/ > > Looking at this, I think that we need to drop the "Standard" part.

It's

...

...

> mostly empty, the places it says things like "TR1" aren't helpful, and > it's easy to misinterpret it as the minimum required C++ level.

I fully agree. Also the top line which give different views of the library documentation can probably drop the "Standard Proposals" and "TR1 libraries" views, since these are really obsolete by now.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

On 1/22/2021 8:06 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:

...

I have slogged through the task of creating PRs for all Boost libraries, even the very many C++03 minimum standard libraries, so that each library would have a 'cxxstd' value in their JSON meta information. It is up to the various library maintainers if they want to accept the PR or not, and a great many of them already have. Hopefully the final result will be that all Boost libraries will show a ‘C++ Standard Minimum Level’ in the documentation page. For those libraries that do not want to show such information, and ignore my PR for that library, end-users can ask the library maintainer(s) directly what the C++ Standard Minimum Level" is through the libraries Github page. Thanks a lot for your efforts and I'm certain this is the best approach. I do recall seeing somewhere in the Boost website an explanation of the meaning of the various fields shown for each library's documentation, but I can not recall where this is anymore. See https://www.boost.org/development/library_metadata.html

Thanks, that is where I saw the explanations. That is a static page so I will update that myself with a PR.

On 2/6/2021 4:45 PM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

On 1/22/2021 8:06 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:

...

...

I have slogged through the task of creating PRs for all Boost libraries, even the very many C++03 minimum standard libraries, so that each library would have a 'cxxstd' value in their JSON meta information. It is up to the various library maintainers if they want to accept the PR or not, and a great many of them already have. Hopefully the final result will be that all Boost libraries will show a ‘C++ Standard Minimum Level’ in the documentation page. For those libraries that do not want to show such information, and ignore my PR for that library, end-users can ask the library maintainer(s) directly what the C++ Standard Minimum Level" is through the libraries Github page. Thanks a lot for your efforts and I'm certain this is the best approach. I do recall seeing somewhere in the Boost website an explanation of the meaning of the various fields shown for each library's documentation, but I can not recall where this is anymore. See https://www.boost.org/development/library_metadata.html

I have created a PR for the above HTML page, adding in an explanation for the 'cxxstd' field.

So far my PR for the 'cxxstd' metadata field has seen 93 Boost libraries adding the 'cxxstd' field to their metadata, but 38 libraries have yet to do so. Hopefully those other 38 libraries which merge my PR so that the end-user can clearly see what the C++ minimum compilation level is for each Boost library.

There are still some 35 libraries which have yet to merge my PR for 'cxxstd' into 'develop'. These are: accumulators asio bimap chrono container container_hash contract crc foreach format graph graph_parallel intrusive lambda locale local_function move mpi msm odeint polygon program_options property_tree proto ratio scope_exit statechart test thread typeof type_erasure units unordered uuid xpressive If you are a maintainer of any of these libraries can you please merge the appropriate PR into 'develop', the merge to 'master' for the upcoming release. Of the other 96 libraries which did merge my PR into 'develop', I do not know how many have merged the change to 'master'. The libraries which I control have done so. Also it would be nice if my PR for the website.git explaining the 'cxxstd' field was merged for the upcoming release.

On 3/9/2021 11:32 AM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

On 2/25/2021 4:27 PM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

...

On 2/6/2021 4:45 PM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

...

On 1/22/2021 8:06 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:

...

...

I have slogged through the task of creating PRs for all Boost libraries, even the very many C++03 minimum standard libraries, so that each library would have a 'cxxstd' value in their JSON meta information. It is up to the various library maintainers if they want to accept the PR or not, and a great many of them already have. Hopefully the final result will be that all Boost libraries will show a ‘C++ Standard Minimum Level’ in the documentation page. For those libraries that do not want to show such information, and ignore my PR for that library, end-users can ask the library maintainer(s) directly what the C++ Standard Minimum Level" is through the libraries Github page. Thanks a lot for your efforts and I'm certain this is the best approach. I do recall seeing somewhere in the Boost website an explanation of the meaning of the various fields shown for each library's documentation, but I can not recall where this is anymore. See https://www.boost.org/development/library_metadata.html

I have created a PR for the above HTML page, adding in an explanation for the 'cxxstd' field.

So far my PR for the 'cxxstd' metadata field has seen 93 Boost libraries adding the 'cxxstd' field to their metadata, but 38 libraries have yet to do so. Hopefully those other 38 libraries which merge my PR so that the end-user can clearly see what the C++ minimum compilation level is for each Boost library.

There are still some 35 libraries which have yet to merge my PR for 'cxxstd' into 'develop'. These are:

accumulators asio bimap chrono container container_hash contract crc foreach format graph graph_parallel intrusive lambda locale local_function move mpi msm odeint polygon program_options property_tree proto ratio scope_exit statechart test thread typeof type_erasure units unordered uuid xpressive

If you are a maintainer of any of these libraries can you please merge the appropriate PR into 'develop', the merge to 'master' for the upcoming release.

Of the other 96 libraries which did merge my PR into 'develop', I do not know how many have merged the change to 'master'. The libraries which I control have done so.

Also it would be nice if my PR for the website.git explaining the 'cxxstd' field was merged for the upcoming release.

There are still 33 libraries in the list above as Boost heads into the next release:

accumulators asio bimap chrono container container_hash contract crc foreach graph graph_parallel intrusive lambda locale local_function move mpi msm odeint polygon program_options proto ratio scope_exit statechart test thread typeof type_erasure units unordered uuid xpressive

If you are a maintainer could you please merge the PR, merge 'develop' into 'master' and get the 'cxxstd' fix into the next release. This is merely a meta-information fix so there is nothing to test and no code that changes. Thank you !

There are still some 30 libraries which have never updated their metadata in libraries.json to include a 'cxxstd' field which would specify the minumum C++ standard level for that library, so that programmers can see that information on the libraries documentation page. I have PRs for all these libraries in their 'develop' branch. These libraries are: accumulators asio bimap chrono container_hash contract crc foreach graph graph_parallel lambda locale local_function mpi msm odeint polygon program_options proto ratio scope_exit statechart test thread typeof type_erasure units unordered uuid xpressive All these libraries are C++03 minimum level libraries but it sure would be useful for programmers to be able to see that in the libraries documentation page for a particular library instead of wondering why a Boost library has no C++ minimum mentioned while some 101 other libraries do show that information. How about it maintainers of these 30 libraries ? Are you there or awake ? Please merge this change and get this purely metafile documentation feature in the upcoming 1.76 release.