C++11 on up Boost libraries

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
In my effort to set the meta information of 'cxxstd' for the appropriate
C++11 on up libraries, my PRs for these libraries have been kindly
merged to 'develop' by the library maintainers:

beast
callable_traits
context
convert
coroutine2
fiber
geometry
gil
hana
histogram
hof
json
leaf
mp11
nowide
outcome
pfr
process
safe_numerics
static_string
stl_interfaces
variant2
yap

If anyone knows of any other current library which is a C++11 on up
library, please tell me. My testing showed that all other Boost
libraries will work in C++03 mode, but maybe I missed some other library
which is a C++11 on up library.

Needless to say other libraries have noted their attention to move from
C++03 to C++11 in the near future. If any library does change the C++
mode necessary to use that library, I hope the maintainer(s) of that
library will update the 'cxxstd' meta information appropriately.

If we can get the website to work properly using the 'cxxstd' meta
information, end-users should be able to know immediately whether a
Boost library is usable depending on the C++ standard mode their are using.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
Thanks!

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 8:23 PM Edward Diener via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> In my effort to set the meta information of 'cxxstd' for the appropriate
> C++11 on up libraries, my PRs for these libraries have been kindly
> merged to 'develop' by the library maintainers:
>
> beast
> callable_traits
> context
> convert
> coroutine2
> fiber
> geometry
> gil
> hana
> histogram
> hof
> json
> leaf
> mp11
> nowide
> outcome
> pfr
> process
> safe_numerics
> static_string
> stl_interfaces
> variant2
> yap
>
> If anyone knows of any other current library which is a C++11 on up
> library, please tell me. My testing showed that all other Boost
> libraries will work in C++03 mode, but maybe I missed some other library
> which is a C++11 on up library.
>
> Needless to say other libraries have noted their attention to move from
> C++03 to C++11 in the near future. If any library does change the C++
> mode necessary to use that library, I hope the maintainer(s) of that
> library will update the 'cxxstd' meta information appropriately.
>
> If we can get the website to work properly using the 'cxxstd' meta
> information, end-users should be able to know immediately whether a
> Boost library is usable depending on the C++ standard mode their are using.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Wed, 30 Dec 2020, 05:23 Edward Diener via Boost, <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> In my effort to set the meta information of 'cxxstd' for the appropriate
> C++11 on up libraries, my PRs for these libraries have been kindly
> merged to 'develop' by the library maintainers:
>
> beast
> callable_traits
> context
> convert
> coroutine2
> fiber
> geometry
> gil



Thank you!

Best regards,
Mateusz Loskot, [hidden email]
(Sent from mobile, may suffer from top-posting)

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Boost.Math has a documented minimum requirement of C++11 (but many library functions, distributions etc still work with C++03, and some new library items require C++17, and some are likely to require C++20 very soon).

I'm sorry that this doesn't fit neatly into your schema ☹

Paul


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
> Sent: 30 December 2020 04:23
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>
> In my effort to set the meta information of 'cxxstd' for the appropriate
> C++11 on up libraries, my PRs for these libraries have been kindly
> merged to 'develop' by the library maintainers:
>
> beast
> callable_traits
> context
> convert
> coroutine2
> fiber
> geometry
> gil
> hana
> histogram
> hof
> json
> leaf
> mp11
> nowide
> outcome
> pfr
> process
> safe_numerics
> static_string
> stl_interfaces
> variant2
> yap
>
> If anyone knows of any other current library which is a C++11 on up
> library, please tell me. My testing showed that all other Boost
> libraries will work in C++03 mode, but maybe I missed some other library
> which is a C++11 on up library.
>
> Needless to say other libraries have noted their attention to move from
> C++03 to C++11 in the near future. If any library does change the C++
> mode necessary to use that library, I hope the maintainer(s) of that
> library will update the 'cxxstd' meta information appropriately.
>
> If we can get the website to work properly using the 'cxxstd' meta
> information, end-users should be able to know immediately whether a
> Boost library is usable depending on the C++ standard mode their are using.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 12/30/2020 7:20 AM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
> Boost.Math has a documented minimum requirement of C++11 (but many library functions, distributions etc still work with C++03, and some new library items require C++17, and some are likely to require C++20 very soon).
>
> I'm sorry that this doesn't fit neatly into your schema ☹

I think then 'cxxstd' should be '11' for Boost.Math. Does this also need
to be set for any of:

Math Common Factor
Math Octonian
Math Quaternion
Math/Special Functions
Math/Statistical Distributions

?

>
> Paul
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
>> Sent: 30 December 2020 04:23
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>>
>> In my effort to set the meta information of 'cxxstd' for the appropriate
>> C++11 on up libraries, my PRs for these libraries have been kindly
>> merged to 'develop' by the library maintainers:
>>
>> beast
>> callable_traits
>> context
>> convert
>> coroutine2
>> fiber
>> geometry
>> gil
>> hana
>> histogram
>> hof
>> json
>> leaf
>> mp11
>> nowide
>> outcome
>> pfr
>> process
>> safe_numerics
>> static_string
>> stl_interfaces
>> variant2
>> yap
>>
>> If anyone knows of any other current library which is a C++11 on up
>> library, please tell me. My testing showed that all other Boost
>> libraries will work in C++03 mode, but maybe I missed some other library
>> which is a C++11 on up library.
>>
>> Needless to say other libraries have noted their attention to move from
>> C++03 to C++11 in the near future. If any library does change the C++
>> mode necessary to use that library, I hope the maintainer(s) of that
>> library will update the 'cxxstd' meta information appropriately.
>>
>> If we can get the website to work properly using the 'cxxstd' meta
>> information, end-users should be able to know immediately whether a
>> Boost library is usable depending on the C++ standard mode their are using.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 30/12/2020 15:04, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

> On 12/30/2020 7:20 AM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
>> Boost.Math has a documented minimum requirement of C++11 (but many
>> library functions, distributions etc still work with C++03, and some
>> new library items require C++17, and some are likely to require C++20
>> very soon).
>>
>> I'm sorry that this doesn't fit neatly into your schema ☹
>
> I think then 'cxxstd' should be '11' for Boost.Math. Does this also
> need to be set for any of:
>
> Math Common Factor
> Math Octonian
> Math Quaternion
> Math/Special Functions
> Math/Statistical Distributions

All of them come under Boost.Math, and all are moving to C++11 in the
next release (OK, so here and there stuff may work in C++03, but it
won't be tested any more).

Likewise Multiprecision is moving to actively require C++11 in the next
release.

Also Regex will deprecate C++03 in the next release - it will continue
to work for a bit but the future is C++11.

HTH, John.

>
> ?
>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward
>>> Diener via Boost
>>> Sent: 30 December 2020 04:23
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>>>
>>> In my effort to set the meta information of 'cxxstd' for the
>>> appropriate
>>> C++11 on up libraries, my PRs for these libraries have been kindly
>>> merged to 'develop' by the library maintainers:
>>>
>>> beast
>>> callable_traits
>>> context
>>> convert
>>> coroutine2
>>> fiber
>>> geometry
>>> gil
>>> hana
>>> histogram
>>> hof
>>> json
>>> leaf
>>> mp11
>>> nowide
>>> outcome
>>> pfr
>>> process
>>> safe_numerics
>>> static_string
>>> stl_interfaces
>>> variant2
>>> yap
>>>
>>> If anyone knows of any other current library which is a C++11 on up
>>> library, please tell me. My testing showed that all other Boost
>>> libraries will work in C++03 mode, but maybe I missed some other
>>> library
>>> which is a C++11 on up library.
>>>
>>> Needless to say other libraries have noted their attention to move from
>>> C++03 to C++11 in the near future. If any library does change the C++
>>> mode necessary to use that library, I hope the maintainer(s) of that
>>> library will update the 'cxxstd' meta information appropriately.
>>>
>>> If we can get the website to work properly using the 'cxxstd' meta
>>> information, end-users should be able to know immediately whether a
>>> Boost library is usable depending on the C++ standard mode their are
>>> using.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
> Sent: 30 December 2020 15:04
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>
> On 12/30/2020 7:20 AM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
> > Boost.Math has a documented minimum requirement of C++11 (but many library functions,
> distributions etc still work with C++03, and some new library items require C++17, and some are likely
> to require C++20 very soon).
> >
> > I'm sorry that this doesn't fit neatly into your schema ☹
>
> I think then 'cxxstd' should be '11' for Boost.Math. Does this also need to be set for any of:

Boost.config https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_75_0/libs/config/doc/html/index.html

is used by all these libraries and  may determine the cxxstd that is supported.

> Math Common Factor

Is now part of Boost. Integer

https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/integer/doc/html/index.html

whereas

> Math Octonian
> Math Quaternion

Are part of Boost.Math
https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/math/doc/html/quaternions.html
https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/math/doc/html/octonions.html
I believe that the above are quite mature and should still work at C++03.

But many of these below are only tested at C++11 and may fail at C++03 (and others require C++14 or even C++17)

> Math/Special Functions
> Math/Statistical Distributions

These are a useful guide, but the only certain method of determining the actual requirements for a particular program and tool chain is to try it.

Paul

> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward
> >> Diener via Boost
> >> Sent: 30 December 2020 04:23
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
> >>
> >> In my effort to set the meta information of 'cxxstd' for the
> >> appropriate
> >> C++11 on up libraries, my PRs for these libraries have been kindly
> >> merged to 'develop' by the library maintainers:
> >>
> >> beast
> >> callable_traits
> >> context
> >> convert
> >> coroutine2
> >> fiber
> >> geometry
> >> gil
> >> hana
> >> histogram
> >> hof
> >> json
> >> leaf
> >> mp11
> >> nowide
> >> outcome
> >> pfr
> >> process
> >> safe_numerics
> >> static_string
> >> stl_interfaces
> >> variant2
> >> yap
> >>
> >> If anyone knows of any other current library which is a C++11 on up
> >> library, please tell me. My testing showed that all other Boost
> >> libraries will work in C++03 mode, but maybe I missed some other
> >> library which is a C++11 on up library.
> >>
> >> Needless to say other libraries have noted their attention to move
> >> from
> >> C++03 to C++11 in the near future. If any library does change the C++
> >> mode necessary to use that library, I hope the maintainer(s) of that
> >> library will update the 'cxxstd' meta information appropriately.
> >>
> >> If we can get the website to work properly using the 'cxxstd' meta
> >> information, end-users should be able to know immediately whether a
> >> Boost library is usable depending on the C++ standard mode their are using.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
John Maddock wrote:

> > Math/Special Functions
...

> All of them come under Boost.Math, and all are moving to C++11 in the next
> release (OK, so here and there stuff may work in C++03, but it won't be
> tested any more).

I'm using this as an opportunity to note that I've implemented the (C++11)
floating point classification and sign manipulation functions in
boost/core/cmath.hpp, in order to allow libraries that only need those to no
longer have a dependency on Math. E.g.

https://github.com/boostorg/lexical_cast/pull/39
https://github.com/boostorg/random/pull/77

The functions in Core support C++03.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 12/30/2020 12:12 PM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:

> On 30/12/2020 15:04, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
>> On 12/30/2020 7:20 AM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
>>> Boost.Math has a documented minimum requirement of C++11 (but many
>>> library functions, distributions etc still work with C++03, and some
>>> new library items require C++17, and some are likely to require C++20
>>> very soon).
>>>
>>> I'm sorry that this doesn't fit neatly into your schema ☹
>>
>> I think then 'cxxstd' should be '11' for Boost.Math. Does this also
>> need to be set for any of:
>>
>> Math Common Factor
>> Math Octonian
>> Math Quaternion
>> Math/Special Functions
>> Math/Statistical Distributions
>
> All of them come under Boost.Math, and all are moving to C++11 in the
> next release (OK, so here and there stuff may work in C++03, but it
> won't be tested any more).

It is really up to the maintainers to set 'cxxstd' to whatever they feel
is the minimum C++ standard level for their library. I can put in a PR
for all the math libraries as "cxxstd": "11", but maintainers should set
the right value for the future.

>
> Likewise Multiprecision is moving to actively require C++11 in the next
> release.

Then it should be "cxxstd": "11".

>
> Also Regex will deprecate C++03 in the next release - it will continue
> to work for a bit but the future is C++11.

I know you are the regex maintainer so it is your call.

>
> HTH, John.
>
>>
>> ?
>>
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward
>>>> Diener via Boost
>>>> Sent: 30 December 2020 04:23
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>>>>
>>>> In my effort to set the meta information of 'cxxstd' for the
>>>> appropriate
>>>> C++11 on up libraries, my PRs for these libraries have been kindly
>>>> merged to 'develop' by the library maintainers:
>>>>
>>>> beast
>>>> callable_traits
>>>> context
>>>> convert
>>>> coroutine2
>>>> fiber
>>>> geometry
>>>> gil
>>>> hana
>>>> histogram
>>>> hof
>>>> json
>>>> leaf
>>>> mp11
>>>> nowide
>>>> outcome
>>>> pfr
>>>> process
>>>> safe_numerics
>>>> static_string
>>>> stl_interfaces
>>>> variant2
>>>> yap
>>>>
>>>> If anyone knows of any other current library which is a C++11 on up
>>>> library, please tell me. My testing showed that all other Boost
>>>> libraries will work in C++03 mode, but maybe I missed some other
>>>> library
>>>> which is a C++11 on up library.
>>>>
>>>> Needless to say other libraries have noted their attention to move from
>>>> C++03 to C++11 in the near future. If any library does change the C++
>>>> mode necessary to use that library, I hope the maintainer(s) of that
>>>> library will update the 'cxxstd' meta information appropriately.
>>>>
>>>> If we can get the website to work properly using the 'cxxstd' meta
>>>> information, end-users should be able to know immediately whether a
>>>> Boost library is usable depending on the C++ standard mode their are
>>>> using.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 12/30/2020 12:13 PM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
>> Sent: 30 December 2020 15:04
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>>
>> On 12/30/2020 7:20 AM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
>>> Boost.Math has a documented minimum requirement of C++11 (but many library functions,
>> distributions etc still work with C++03, and some new library items require C++17, and some are likely
>> to require C++20 very soon).
>>>
>>> I'm sorry that this doesn't fit neatly into your schema ☹
>>
>> I think then 'cxxstd' should be '11' for Boost.Math. Does this also need to be set for any of:
>
> Boost.config https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_75_0/libs/config/doc/html/index.html
>
> is used by all these libraries and  may determine the cxxstd that is supported.
>
>> Math Common Factor
>
> Is now part of Boost. Integer
>
> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/integer/doc/html/index.html
>
> whereas
>
>> Math Octonian
>> Math Quaternion
>
> Are part of Boost.Math
> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/math/doc/html/quaternions.html
> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/math/doc/html/octonions.html
> I believe that the above are quite mature and should still work at C++03.
>
> But many of these below are only tested at C++11 and may fail at C++03 (and others require C++14 or even C++17)
>
>> Math/Special Functions
>> Math/Statistical Distributions
>
> These are a useful guide, but the only certain method of determining the actual requirements for a particular program and tool chain is to try it.

But we want to tell the end-user a minumum C++ level or above he can
expect a library to be useful. Telling people to try it as a hit or miss
is what I am trying to avoid with 'cxxstd'.

>
> Paul
>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward
>>>> Diener via Boost
>>>> Sent: 30 December 2020 04:23
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>>>>
>>>> In my effort to set the meta information of 'cxxstd' for the
>>>> appropriate
>>>> C++11 on up libraries, my PRs for these libraries have been kindly
>>>> merged to 'develop' by the library maintainers:
>>>>
>>>> beast
>>>> callable_traits
>>>> context
>>>> convert
>>>> coroutine2
>>>> fiber
>>>> geometry
>>>> gil
>>>> hana
>>>> histogram
>>>> hof
>>>> json
>>>> leaf
>>>> mp11
>>>> nowide
>>>> outcome
>>>> pfr
>>>> process
>>>> safe_numerics
>>>> static_string
>>>> stl_interfaces
>>>> variant2
>>>> yap
>>>>
>>>> If anyone knows of any other current library which is a C++11 on up
>>>> library, please tell me. My testing showed that all other Boost
>>>> libraries will work in C++03 mode, but maybe I missed some other
>>>> library which is a C++11 on up library.
>>>>
>>>> Needless to say other libraries have noted their attention to move
>>>> from
>>>> C++03 to C++11 in the near future. If any library does change the C++
>>>> mode necessary to use that library, I hope the maintainer(s) of that
>>>> library will update the 'cxxstd' meta information appropriately.
>>>>
>>>> If we can get the website to work properly using the 'cxxstd' meta
>>>> information, end-users should be able to know immediately whether a
>>>> Boost library is usable depending on the C++ standard mode their are using.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 12/30/2020 12:13 PM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
>> Sent: 30 December 2020 15:04
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>>
>> On 12/30/2020 7:20 AM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
>>> Boost.Math has a documented minimum requirement of C++11 (but many library functions,
>> distributions etc still work with C++03, and some new library items require C++17, and some are likely
>> to require C++20 very soon).
>>>
>>> I'm sorry that this doesn't fit neatly into your schema ☹
>>
>> I think then 'cxxstd' should be '11' for Boost.Math. Does this also need to be set for any of:
>
> Boost.config https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_75_0/libs/config/doc/html/index.html
>
> is used by all these libraries and  may determine the cxxstd that is supported.
>
>> Math Common Factor
>
> Is now part of Boost. Integer
>
> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/integer/doc/html/index.html
>
> whereas
>
>> Math Octonian
>> Math Quaternion
>
> Are part of Boost.Math
> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/math/doc/html/quaternions.html
> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/libs/math/doc/html/octonions.html
> I believe that the above are quite mature and should still work at C++03.
>
> But many of these below are only tested at C++11 and may fail at C++03 (and others require C++14 or even C++17)
>
>> Math/Special Functions
>> Math/Statistical Distributions
>
> These are a useful guide, but the only certain method of determining the actual requirements for a particular program and tool chain is to try it.

Let me try again. I acknowledge that a library may have functionality
where different C++ standard levels are needed to access that
functionality. Still an end-user will probably want to know whether that
library is mostly usable given the C++ standard level he/she is using
for compilation of C++ code. That is all I am trying to establish for
Boost libraries with the 'cxxstd' json field for a library's meta data.
It does not mean that there is not functionality in the library which
does not really need that 'cxxstd' level, or that there is not
functionality in the library which needs a higher 'cxxstd' level. These
things may, and probably should, be documented for that library in the
official library's documentation. And of course the end-user should read
the library's documentation. But I have very often found that something
as basic as what C++ level is needed to use the functionality of a
library, or what C++ level is needed to use just some of the
functionality of a library, is extremely hard to find in most Boost
library's documentation unless you know a priori where in general to
look. And since Boost has perhaps wisely decided not to tell library
developers exactly where in the documentation certain things should be
explained, I felt that having this basic information about a minimum C++
standard level should be easily available to the end-user, where the
documentation itself can explain what C++ level, or perhaps more
correctly what C++ features, may be needed for other functionality in
the library.

I acknowledge that others may not agree that this minimum C++ standard
level may not be as useful for end-users as I believe it is.

>
> Paul
>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward
>>>> Diener via Boost
>>>> Sent: 30 December 2020 04:23
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>>>>
>>>> In my effort to set the meta information of 'cxxstd' for the
>>>> appropriate
>>>> C++11 on up libraries, my PRs for these libraries have been kindly
>>>> merged to 'develop' by the library maintainers:
>>>>
>>>> beast
>>>> callable_traits
>>>> context
>>>> convert
>>>> coroutine2
>>>> fiber
>>>> geometry
>>>> gil
>>>> hana
>>>> histogram
>>>> hof
>>>> json
>>>> leaf
>>>> mp11
>>>> nowide
>>>> outcome
>>>> pfr
>>>> process
>>>> safe_numerics
>>>> static_string
>>>> stl_interfaces
>>>> variant2
>>>> yap
>>>>
>>>> If anyone knows of any other current library which is a C++11 on up
>>>> library, please tell me. My testing showed that all other Boost
>>>> libraries will work in C++03 mode, but maybe I missed some other
>>>> library which is a C++11 on up library.
>>>>
>>>> Needless to say other libraries have noted their attention to move
>>>> from
>>>> C++03 to C++11 in the near future. If any library does change the C++
>>>> mode necessary to use that library, I hope the maintainer(s) of that
>>>> library will update the 'cxxstd' meta information appropriately.
>>>>
>>>> If we can get the website to work properly using the 'cxxstd' meta
>>>> information, end-users should be able to know immediately whether a
>>>> Boost library is usable depending on the C++ standard mode their are using.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:28 PM Edward Diener via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...

This whole thread reminds me of the old joke, "How many Boost authors
does it take to list the minimum C++ version required for a library?"

Thanks

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 12/30/2020 8:47 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:28 PM Edward Diener via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> ...
>
> This whole thread reminds me of the old joke, "How many Boost authors
> does it take to list the minimum C++ version required for a library?"

I will not say that a Boost library is more complicated than a light
bulb, because the ghost of Thomas Alva Edison as well as electrical
engineers would object, but light bulb sockets have largely been
standardized, at leats here in the US, whereas C++'s standardization is
a moving target.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
> Sent: 31 December 2020 02:07
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>
> On 12/30/2020 8:47 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:28 PM Edward Diener via Boost
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> ...
> >
> > This whole thread reminds me of the old joke, "How many Boost authors
> > does it take to list the minimum C++ version required for a library?"
>
> I will not say that a Boost library is more complicated than a light bulb, because the ghost of
Thomas
> Alva Edison as well as electrical engineers would object, but light bulb sockets have largely been
> standardized, at leats here in the US, whereas C++'s standardization is a moving target.

It's far worse than that - the toolchain implementations are a movable feast too!

But the TL;DR answer to your question is "assume C++11",

but I believe that we should also encourage would-be users to consult the regression matrix

https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/summary.html

for more detailed info on what is known to work with some confidence based on tests,

and finally try it and see, rather than making big decisions and investments after assuming the
cxxstd info is definitive.

Paul

PS We are steering a difficult course between trying to encourage users to use the most recent
(hopefully best) compilers and Cxxstd while avoiding putting off (and losing) those who are happily
using ancient compilers, and can probably continue to do so.



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
Wow, I have never seen that matrix before - that’s really useful - thanks for the link!

Honestly, a link to that should be prominently displayed on the top boost.org page. I see it now in the development->testing, but that’s kinda buried - especially since most users aren’t looking to develop for boost itself.

-hadriel


> On Dec 31, 2020, at 5:19 AM, Paul A Bristow via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> but I believe that we should also encourage would-be users to consult the regression matrix
>
> https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/summary.html <https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/summary.html>
>
> for more detailed info on what is known to work with some confidence based on tests,


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan via Boost
> Sent: 31 December 2020 16:15
> To: Boost mailing list <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Hadriel Kaplan <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>
> Wow, I have never seen that matrix before - that’s really useful - thanks for the link!
>
> Honestly, a link to that should be prominently displayed on the top boost.org page. I see it now in the
> development->testing, but that’s kinda buried - especially since most users aren’t looking to develop
> for boost itself.

Indeed - it is quite well hidden and Google struggles to find it without exactly the right question ☹

I have the develop version bookmarked 😊  and that meets my needs.

But I haven't found the equivalent for each Boost *release*.  Since this contains the most detailed test results for each release, should we be keeping a copy of the regression report for master at the time of each release.

Or have I not found these records yet?

I believe that we should point users to these tables in the context of cxxstd support.

Paul

PS I note that the current https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/index.html

Contains a reference to SVN health, but we have been using Git for some time now.

Also the user summary link

https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/user/index.html

is not working at present

"Error extracting file: Error code 11 - No matching files were found."

This summary is probably a more useful link - but saving for each release would be good.

Should I raise a GitHub issue for this?




> > On Dec 31, 2020, at 5:19 AM, Paul A Bristow via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > but I believe that we should also encourage would-be users to consult the regression matrix
> >
> > https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/summary.html
> <https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/summary.html>
> >
> > for more detailed info on what is known to work with some confidence based on tests,
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 12/31/2020 12:50 PM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan via Boost
>> Sent: 31 December 2020 16:15
>> To: Boost mailing list <[hidden email]>
>> Cc: Hadriel Kaplan <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>>
>> Wow, I have never seen that matrix before - that’s really useful - thanks for the link!
>>
>> Honestly, a link to that should be prominently displayed on the top boost.org page. I see it now in the
>> development->testing, but that’s kinda buried - especially since most users aren’t looking to develop
>> for boost itself.
>
> Indeed - it is quite well hidden and Google struggles to find it without exactly the right question ☹
>
> I have the develop version bookmarked 😊  and that meets my needs.
>
> But I haven't found the equivalent for each Boost *release*.  Since this contains the most detailed test results for each release, should we be keeping a copy of the regression report for master at the time of each release.
>
> Or have I not found these records yet?
>
> I believe that we should point users to these tables in the context of cxxstd support.
>
> Paul
>
> PS I note that the current https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/index.html
>
> Contains a reference to SVN health, but we have been using Git for some time now.
>
> Also the user summary link
>
> https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/user/index.html

Where is this URL found ? The normal links from
https://www.boost.org/development/testing.html seem fine to me.

>
> is not working at present
>
> "Error extracting file: Error code 11 - No matching files were found."
>
> This summary is probably a more useful link - but saving for each release would be good.
>
> Should I raise a GitHub issue for this?
>
>
>
>
>>> On Dec 31, 2020, at 5:19 AM, Paul A Bristow via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> but I believe that we should also encourage would-be users to consult the regression matrix
>>>
>>> https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/summary.html
>> <https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/summary.html>
>>>
>>> for more detailed info on what is known to work with some confidence based on tests,


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 11:50 AM Paul A Bristow via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> But I haven't found the equivalent for each Boost *release*.  Since this
> contains the most detailed test results for each release, should we be
> keeping a copy of the regression report for master at the time of each
> release.
>
> Or have I not found these records yet?
>

Once upon a long time ago we used to snapshot the release test results. But
that: was a complicated manual process to manage for the testers and
release managers, and took a bunch of disk space that wasn't available at
the time.

--
-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything  -- No Supone Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
> Sent: 31 December 2020 18:19
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Edward Diener <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
>
> On 12/31/2020 12:50 PM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Hadriel
> >> Kaplan via Boost
> >> Sent: 31 December 2020 16:15
> >> To: Boost mailing list <[hidden email]>
> >> Cc: Hadriel Kaplan <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
> >>
> >> Wow, I have never seen that matrix before - that’s really useful - thanks for the link!
> >>
> >> Honestly, a link to that should be prominently displayed on the top
> >> boost.org page. I see it now in the
> >> development->testing, but that’s kinda buried - especially since most
> >> development->users aren’t looking to develop
> >> for boost itself.
> >
> > Indeed - it is quite well hidden and Google struggles to find it
> > without exactly the right question ☹
> >
> > I have the develop version bookmarked 😊  and that meets my needs.
> >
> > But I haven't found the equivalent for each Boost *release*.  Since this contains the most detailed
> test results for each release, should we be keeping a copy of the regression report for master at the
> time of each release.
> >
> > Or have I not found these records yet?
> >
> > I believe that we should point users to these tables in the context of cxxstd support.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > PS I note that the current
> > https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/index.html
> >
> > Contains a reference to SVN health, but we have been using Git for some time now.
> >
> > Also the user summary link
> >
> > https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/user/index.html
>
> Where is this URL found ?

By a little light googling, I think.  Perhaps it is obsolete relic and should be deleted?  

The normal links from https://www.boost.org/development/testing.html seem fine to me.

In the past, I have found it difficult to find this page, and I believe I am not alone.

That would do, except that it is not Boost release version specific.

But most of all, IMO anyone asking the question "what library will work with what cxxstd? "  should be urged to consult the testing pages as well as the cxxstd minimum requirement by providing a link to this page or, better, a Boost release version.

> > is not working at present
> >
> > "Error extracting file: Error code 11 - No matching files were found."
> >
> > This summary is probably a more useful link - but saving for each release would be good.
> >
> > Should I raise a GitHub issue for this?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> On Dec 31, 2020, at 5:19 AM, Paul A Bristow via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> but I believe that we should also encourage would-be users to
> >>> consult the regression matrix
> >>>
> >>> https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/summary.htm
> >>> l
> >> <https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/summary.htm
> >> l>
> >>>
> >>> for more detailed info on what is known to work with some confidence
> >>> based on tests,
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list

> On 30. Dec 2020, at 13:20, Paul A Bristow via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Boost.Math has a documented minimum requirement of C++11 (but many library functions, distributions etc still work with C++03, and some new library items require C++17, and some are likely to require C++20 very soon).
>
> I'm sorry that this doesn't fit neatly into your schema ☹
>
> Paul

I am curious, which parts of Boost.Math have a minimum requirement of C++17 or later? I could not tell from a quick glance at the github page or the docs... Can a math library consisting mostly of functions and algorithms not be written in a way to have a minimum requirement of C++11 and optionally support later standards?

Best regards,
Hans

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
12