clang-tidy: simplify some algorithms

[neheb]

Just a cleanup to prepare for C++20

I have:

• [ x] read the CONTRIBUTING.md document
• compiled this code

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12303894321

Details

• 4 of 5 (80.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
• 98 unchanged lines in 10 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+11.0%) to 73.794%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
pdns/arguments.cc	0	1	0.0%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
pdns/recursordist/test-rec-tcounters_cc.cc	2	95.77%
pdns/recursordist/test-syncres_cc2.cc	3	88.91%
pdns/recursordist/rec-main.cc	3	62.38%
modules/godbcbackend/sodbc.cc	4	70.8%
pdns/packethandler.cc	5	72.44%
pdns/recursordist/syncres.cc	7	79.49%
pdns/recursordist/taskqueue.cc	11	34.15%
pdns/recursordist/test-syncres_cc1.cc	13	89.14%
modules/lmdbbackend/lmdbbackend.cc	16	72.5%
pdns/recursordist/rec-taskqueue.cc	34	40.14%

Totals
Change from base Build 12285701287:	11.0%
Covered Lines:	81221
Relevant Lines:	104054

---

💛 - Coveralls

[omoerbeek]

I am a bit confused. Why prefer the boost variation of things that are available in standard C++? In general, I think the policy should be for features available both in boost and standard C++ to lean to the standard C++ variant.

[neheb]

std::ranges comes in C++20.

[omoerbeek]

std::ranges comes in C++20.

I know that, but what's the reason to move to range::sort if the regular sort is fine?

[neheb]

Readability mostly.

[omoerbeek]

I am not convinced. To me this PR looks quite a lot of churn with no real benefit.

[neheb]

Do note that clang-tidy makes the transformations away from boost with C++20

[omoerbeek]

Do note that clang-tidy makes the transformations away from boost with C++20

Which is in line with the policy to use std c++ if possible. I'll let the other maintainers chime in to see what they think about this.

[rgacogne]

Thank you for this PR, but I'm afraid I'm with Otto on this one: I have been trying to reduce the use of Boost in DNSdist whenever possible. I would love to be able to use C++20 but we are not quite there yet, and in the meantime I would prefer to use std C++ whenever possible.

[omoerbeek]

Note existing calls to sort (without namespace) ad a few other functions use https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/adl to find the function. In the cases I checked, the arguments refer to std:: datatypes, so they resolve to using a function instd::.

[neheb]

OK. reduced boost usage and simplified some algorithms. What do you think?

[rgacogne]

I would rather not introduce a boost::range for such a trivial change.

[neheb]

Removed.

[rgacogne]

Looks good to me now, thanks! I guess we should update the title of the PR, thought, because as it is right now it would lead to a misleading entry in the ChangeLog.

[neheb]

Done.