headers
Gottlob Frege | 1 Feb 01:41
Picon

Re: [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5

My suggestions:

RFC for
under review for
works with

Tony
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Andrey Semashev | 1 Feb 04:21
Picon

Re: [log] Release Candidate 4 released

On 02/01/2010 12:38 AM, vicente.botet wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrey
> Semashev"<andrey.semashev <at> gmail.com> To:<boost <at> lists.boost.org> Sent:
> Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Release
> Candidate 4 released
>
>
>>
>> On 01/31/2010 10:03 PM, vicente.botet wrote:
>>>
>>> if I build with  threading=single there are a lot of errors. So
>>> maybe you could include different files in the library depending
>>> on this feature and execute only the tests that could be run.
>>
>> What build errors do you get?  BTW, if you get errors in compiling
>> examples for single-threaded environment, that's expected.
>
> I guess you mean examples for multi-threaded environment. When I
> request to test the library for a single-thread environement, I
> expect the library compiles and run tests that have a sense only on
> single-threaded environement. I don't know if you can make explicit
> which tests must be run when threading=single and when
> threading=multi with bjam, but IMHO this should be a must.

Oh, I see. I made examples to be built during testing. I'll look into it.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bjørn Roald | 1 Feb 06:49

Re: [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5

On Sunday 31 January 2010 11:20:29 pm Patrick Horgan wrote:
> I've put some new/improved/resized icons up to reflect the discussion.
> 
> http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html

These are all good as far as layout.  I think the two-liners work fairy well.

I dislike the "under construction" variant.  If we keep it it should be 
changed to "under construction for" two-liner, but I think "preliminary 
proposal for" cover tat use case better.

my vote is:

preliminary proposal for 
proposal for
using

With the option of cutting the first and adding a requirement to add proposal 
state information in a mandatory text legend at start of documentation.

--

-- 
Bjørn 
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 42 comments |
headers
Bjørn Roald | 1 Feb 07:01

Re: [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5

On Monday 01 February 2010 01:41:40 am Gottlob Frege wrote:
> My suggestions:
> 
> RFC for

ok, works with me.

> under review for

When you read this 10 years after the review, this says it is still under 
review.

> works with

It is unclear to me what this is used for.  Is it works with as in using, or 
as in compatible with?

--

-- 
Bjørn
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Glyn Matthews | 1 Feb 12:26
Picon
Gravatar

Re: C++ Networking Library Release 0.5

Hi Vicente,

On 30 January 2010 16:08, vicente.botet <vicente.botet <at> wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dean Michael Berris" <mikhailberis <at> gmail.com>
> To: <boost <at> lists.boost.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 12:33 AM
> Subject: [boost] C++ Networking Library Release 0.5
>
>
> >
> > Good day everyone, and I apologize in advance for the shameless plug.
> > That said though, I'd like to announce the availability of version 0.5
> > of the C++ Network Library (cpp-netlib) on both Github and
> > Sourceforge.
> >
> > For those interested in trying out a header-only
> > being-developed-for-boost-inclusion networking library collection, you
>
> > You can find documentation about cpp-netlib over at
> >
> >    http://cpp-netlib.github.com/
> >
> > Thanks in advance everyone and I hope this helps!
>
> Hi,
>
> looking at the Message Concept let me think that the goal of library is to
> help on networking application for text based protocols. Is this the scope
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Glyn Matthews | 1 Feb 12:26
Picon
Gravatar

Re: C++ Networking Library Release 0.5

Hi Phil and James,

On 31 January 2010 12:08, Phil Endecott <spam_from_boost_dev <at> chezphil.org>wrote:

> James Mansion wrote:
>
>> Phil Endecott wrote:
>>
>>> I have an HTTP request parser using Spirit, if you're interested.  It is
>>> a bit grotty as I wrote it as my first exercise using Spirit - but it does
>>> work.  http://svn.chezphil.org/libpbe/trunk/src/parse_http_request.cc .
>>>
>> Out of interest, is the parser suitable to use as a tutorial on how to
>> translate from RFC specs?
>>
>
> You're welcome to use it in that way if you wish. Most of it was translated
> directly from the BNF in the RFCs.
>
> It also makes the point that almost no-one actually does implement these
> things by taking the BNF, because if you do that it won't work.  There is at
> least one bug in the HTTP BNF that is documented on an errata web page
> somewhere (the URL is in my source) but that has never justified a new RFC
> after 11 years...
>
>
>  It would be nice to build a library of reference parsers that handle
>> assorted protocols. email is a very interesting one, since the standard (and
>> not-standard-but-in-use) variations on sender, date and time etc are quite
>> tricky, and I guess there is some commonality given that the RFCs tend to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 25 comments |
headers
Beman Dawes | 1 Feb 13:07
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

[1.42.0] OK to build RC?

If anyone knows of any 1.42.0 showstoppers, please post something
right away. Otherwise we will start to put a release candidate
together in a couple of hours.

--Beman
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ronny Spiegel | 1 Feb 13:55

Re: Boost.Atomic request for review/inclusion

Hi Helge,

> I don't have access to any win64 machine. Are you willing to do you a few
> compile/test/report cycles if I implement it, so we can get this added?

should be no problem. I have a win64 machine running visual studio
2005 here. If you send me a patch, I'll give it a try. I didn't have
enough time to have a closer look at the source to know if I could do
this by myself - but I think so :)

Regards,

Ronny
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stewart, Robert | 1 Feb 15:36
Favicon

Re: [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5

Bjørn Roald wrote:
> On Sunday 31 January 2010 11:20:29 pm Patrick Horgan wrote:
>
> > I've put some new/improved/resized icons up to reflect the
> discussion.
> >
> > http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html

Nice work Patrick.

> These are all good as far as layout.  I think the two-liners
> work fairy well.

Yes, there's plenty of room for two lines.

> I dislike the "under construction" variant.  If we keep it it
> should be changed to "under construction for" two-liner, but
> I think "preliminary proposal for" cover tat use case better.

I agree that "for" is needed with "under construction," but splitting "under construction for" into two
lines won't look right any way you try it.

> my vote is:

I like the idea of limiting the variations of the logo.

> preliminary proposal for

I don't like that.  Until something is proposed, it isn't a proposal.  How about "developing for" or
"creating for?"  The present participle implies ongoing work.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 41 comments |
headers
Thomas Klimpel | 1 Feb 16:05

Re: [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5

Patrick Horgan wrote:
> LOL!  I can't imagine anyone would proudly proclaim "my software was
> rejected by boost!"

Well, not exactly "proudly proclaim". But the library author might take a "time off" from development of a
rejected library, and he might want to clearly indicate the current state of the library. However, when I
proposed "rejected by" instead of "rejected proposal for" (assuming it was too long), I thought that any
clear short enough text would do, because it would be used rarely anyway.

> If they are rejected by boost though, they have no
> business showing a boost logo associated with their software

It's not so easy. That they were rejected during a formal boost review doesn't necessarily mean that they
are no longer associated with boost. The current agreement is to limit the number of different logos,
especially no special logo for rejected libraries. I'm perfectly OK with this. The status of a library
rejected during review is quite similar to the status of a library that is not yet proposed for review, so I
think the same logo could be appropriate for both. A quite common case will also be that a rejected library
is simply not touched again after it was rejected. So this could be also OK (="time freeze").

Regards,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |

Gmane