Boost.GIL 3 ideas from the past

[chhenning]

These ideas are old and might be obsolete.

• make sure not only integral types can the base type when creating a pixel type. See packed_pixel_t

• outsource io_new's bit_operations

• outsource io_new's io_devices

• use boost::fusion for defining pixel and color spaces. See emails

  • using variadic templates will help

• make use of overlapping functionality with boost::geometry, like point type registration. See Andrew Hundt's email from 2013/03/13

• pixel should have a begin() and end() members.

• make Alignment a template parameter for image class

• make use of c++11 features, like delegating constructor

• look at the cairo proposal: https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!msg/graphics/UfvaqOyQbQ4/mv0CJS2mRtYJ

• reference implementation: https://github.com/mikebmcl/N3888_RefImpl

• pixman

• http://developers.slashdot.org/story/14/01/04/2115249/cairo-2d-graphics-may-become-part-of-iso-c

[mloskot]

I've taken the liberty to make the title and clearer, searchable and here too https://github.com/boostorg/gil/projects/2

Current master and develop are at Boost.GIL 2, correct?

[chhenning]

Yes, I think so.

[mloskot]

Right, thanks for clarification.

It seems a bit confusing to not to refer to Boost versions, unless there is <boost/gil/version.hpp, like in boost/beast/version.hpp or boost/spirit/version.hpp and others.

[chhenning]

I have added version.hpp and raised the develop version to 2.2. Indicating the new extensions, like io and toolbox.

[mloskot]

Sounds good!

[mloskot]

make use of c++11 features

Although I would welcome complete switch to C++11 that opens possibility to refactor/simpliy the library implementation, I think this is too early to set requirement of C++11:

• Does Boost allow to bump minimum requirement for an existing library? I'm not sure.
• When that should happen, before or after the new IO is released? I'd vote for after.

/cc @stefanseefeld

[stefanseefeld]

I'm not sure there are any fixed rules as to whether we are allowed to make C++11 a requirement. Let's discuss this based on specific goals: can you give a specific example where using a C++11 feature would help ?
I'm reluctant of adding dependencies on other boost libraries (in particular if they are not part of the core set of libraries, such as boost::fusion).

[stefanseefeld]

yeah, definitely after The Grand Merge, which will happen after the current release is complete. I'm confident I'll have the documentation refactoring complete by then...

Any news on the checksum issue with variant=release ?

[mloskot]

@stefanseefeld

I'm reluctant of adding dependencies on other boost libraries (in particular if they are not
part of the core set of libraries

I agree, unless optional.

Any news on the checksum issue with variant=release ?

Although cause of the problem is still a puzzle, I've made small progress and pin-pointed area of Boost.GIL where the issues happens. I will e-mail soon this week.

@stefanseefeld

Let's discuss this based on specific goals: can you give a specific example where using a C++11 feature would help ?

Get rid of boost::lambda, boost::bind (good idea in 2005, bad idea in 2015) for saner compiler errors, at least, I hope.

[chhenning]

Moving this to a wiki.

[chhenning]

https://github.com/boostorg/gil/wiki/gil-3-Ideas

[mloskot]

Closing?

[chhenning]

Issue is not the format I think. A wiki seems better.

[mloskot]

Yes, so my question was if this shouldn't be closed, or you want to keep it open?

[mloskot]

I think I broken the link by renaming the wiki page, here it is

https://github.com/boostorg/gil/wiki/Boost.GIL-3-Ideas