for including the _MSG variant.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
- Original Message -
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Proposed Boost Assert -- once again
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Original Message -
From
/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm
Thanks.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Hi All!
As a final touch in the Numeric Conversion library I have almost ready, I
want to add it named template parameters for easier usage.
Were can I borrow the State of the Art implementation of this idiom from?
TIA,
Fernando Cacciola
- Original Message -
From: Jaakko Jarvi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Named Template Parameters implementation
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Fernando Cacciola
wrote:
As a final touch in the Numeric
; // shared_count::op= doesn't throw
return *this;
}
With this additional assignment, the test passes.
Can't check with other Borland compilers.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Borland C++ 5.5.1 problem with the new shared_ptr tests
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Borland C++ 5.5.1 fails
* tell
whether a given type T is address independent. It is a property of the
object's functionality and not of the C++ implementation. Additionally, I
believe that almost all the types that one might wrap into optional are
effectively address independent.
TIA,
Fernando Cacciola
updating operations.
TIA,
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Dirk Gerrits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
arjgo5$o25$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:arjgo5$o25$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
[snip]
void recieve_async_message()
{
optional rcv ;
while ( !!(rcv = get_async_input()) !timeout() )
output(*rcv);
}
, but it's not very clear IMHO.
Another supported alternative which I forgot to mention is:
if ( initialized(opt) ) ...
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
: syntax error : missing ','
before identifier 'value'
and a lot more :-(
OK. I think I have a VC6.5 or some around. I'll see how to fix it.
Best Regards,
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi
is that (*opt) is a proxy with a 'operator T const() const'
and this operator *is* called -as can be seen with the debugger- but only to
create the temporary that is passed to operator ==
Anyway, with a small twist of the test it now passes with VC6.0
Fernando Cacciola
Maybe, but actually, I don't think optional should work
with references.
It is supposed to wrap a 'value', not a reference/pointer.
Fernando Cacciola
Why? I always did not like the fact that I need to switch to pointers when
my reference argument became optional.
Wait... mayb
- Original Message -
From: Vincent Finn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 12:16 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Formal Review Request: class optional
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Vincent Finn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And now
to be a reference because of the above.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
it...
Therefore, is it possible to factor out this class so it can be used
standalone?
Say, as /utility/wrapstrstream.hpp.
Gennaidy, what do you think?
TIA,
Fernando Cacciola
Well, if there is an interest in reuse of this class I do not see the
reason
why not. BTW at very end of 1.29 I added
a nice solution for it.
All right. I will try to prepare standalone file + doc for submission. Do
we
need the review for this?
I don't think we should need a review for this.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org
to the files including
Test headers:
...
#ifdef __BORLANDC__
#pragma hdrstop
#endif
#includeboost/test/test_tools.hpp
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
that the Test headers might be included by other
headers, but in such a case, the conditional hdrstop would have to be placed
in the proper place.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
comments are based on the design/interface and not the
implementation. I'll look at the implementation when time permits, but
don't expect anything to change my vote for inclusion.
William E. Kempf
Thanks!
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other chang
- Original Message -
From: Glen Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Boost mailing list' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:42 PM
Subject: RE: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
* I'm unsure about the presence
- Original Message -
From: Dirk Gerrits [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:14 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Formal review: Optional library
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
I'm actually trying to vouch for my peek/acquire idiom here.
Essentially, the name
- Original Message -
From: William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
Fernando Cacciola said:
William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
* I believe there should
- Original Message -
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Compile-time print
David A. Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
- Original Message
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Considering a member function that returns
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The conversion to bool for a smart pointer
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
Fernando Cacciola writes:
- Original Message -
From: Glen Knowles [EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't know of 'standard' examples, but in my
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think that optionalbool is an important
complaining about lack of deep constantness on wrappers like
optional
What do others think?
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand your reasoning, but what do you
- Original Message -
From: Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
- Original Message -
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
optional
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Original Message -
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
optional is trying to model using C++ a concept that
it is not really covered by the language, that of uninitialzed
values.
It uses pointer semantics *just* because pointers
)
optionalbool p ;
bool x = p ;
// But here the line above could very well supposed to be: bool x = *p;
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
- Original Message -
From: Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
- Original Message -
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original
{
optional2 ( T const val ) v(val) {}
T const operator *() { return val; } // No Dereference here
T val ;
} ;
Anyway, if yoy know how to make an efficient implementation like
the second one with an aligned storage I'll be happy to use it.
Fernando Cacciola
- Original Message -
From: William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
Fernando Cacciola said:
But if I wrote:
optionalint x = foo();
if ( x )
some(x);
it really
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I still don't like to think of optional
I see no benefit in defining relational operators directly (thus these
operators
will be poisoned)
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
- Original Message -
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why do you think aligned_storageT
is somewhat different so it affect the rest of the
review.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
and more
to the point IMO.
I agree is shorter, but I disagree is more to the point.
Anyway, I've came to get used to 'optional', so is very unlikely that I'll
change it.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Conclusion: I will adopt William's reset
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You should consider providing operator(std
because they would be comparing values (pointee) which is
totally unlike pointers (you don't compare pointee values when comparing
pointers)
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
(1) deep-constantness:
I Followed
- Original Message -
From: William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
David Abrahams said:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED
r
errors! :-)
...though the __wrong__ operator*() escaped me :-(
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
, and the implied aliasing that *o1=3 implies *o2==3
holds.
(o1 == o2 ) - false, so no aliasing is implied.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let me check if I followed your logic
- Original Message -
From: William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
Fernando Cacciola said:
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I thought about that, too
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
True, swap
optional_detail is no longer needed so you may remove it
before unpacking the zip.
Thanks.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
- Original Message -
From: William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
Fernando Cacciola said:
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED
have been
optionalT m(t);
foo(m, m); // comparison inside yields false
Nop... :-)
it compares true because get_pointer(x)==get_poiner(x) is true for any x,
whether initialized or not.
In fact, this is the very reason why I choosen this definition. It matches
pointer aliasing.
Fernando
- Original Message -
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: Formal review: Optional library
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
optionalT m(t);
foo(m, m); // comparison inside
William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Fernando Cacciola said:
Due to some significant changes to the optional class, I had to upload
a new version so that the review can continue based on the revised
class.
if this pointer path is followed.
This is what I will do.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
) ;
T const* operator - () const ;
T* operator - () ;
T const operator* () const ;
T operator* () ;
T const* get() const ;
T* get() ;
operator safe_bool() const ;
friend void swap ( optionalT x, optionalT y ) ;
Fernando Cacciola
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
008901c2a2a8$9d1af430$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:008901c2a2a8$9d1af430$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:
originally by Peter Dimov;
it used to be called statefull_t
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
istory's
sake is not always the best
option.
True... holding on to it for history's sake alone treats evolution;
but learnig from history is quite different;
some things are repeated time after time simply because
they really work.
Fernando
--
:-)
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje
009501c2a3de$319bb370$a7564eca@kim">news:009501c2a3de$319bb370$a7564eca@kim...
- Original Message -
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's wrong with borrowing a well formed concept from
other l
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fernando Cacciola said:
However, and very unfortunately, this _requires_ the properly well
defined relational operators to be di
William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Fernando Cacciola said:
[snip William's comments about the interface with operator T]
I agree with your comments about the interface with operator T.
I show it in the post, actually,
- Original Message -
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boost mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Compile-time print
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't really understand what's going
manually, using putty, so that you can accept the
string. That may or may not be the problem.
Aha... So it stoped at some prompt which I didn't see perhaps...
Fernando Cacciola [home]
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mail
[Just got here at home from the office... sorry for the delay]
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to the docs I've read so far, plink.exe/putty.exe
is windows eq
[Just got here at home from the office... sorry for the delay]
William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Fernando Cacciola said:
Here's a description of my configuration and attempts
in case someone can help me (h
t.
A few __minutes__ after reading the documentation I was successfully able to
checkout, add and commit the optional files!
Thanks Gustavo!
It's on CVS now.
So, what else should I do? Is there something I need to setup in order to
add optional to the regression tests?
TIA.
--
Fernando
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
At 01:56 PM 1/22/2003, Douglas Paul Gregor wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Fernando Cacciola wrote:
So, what else should I do? Is there something I need to setup in order
to
add
William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Fernando Cacciola said:
William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Fernando Cacciola said:
However, shouldn't you be using run instead of
unit-test in the Jamfile?
Ye
I've finally updated my Cygwin installation, so I was able to run bjam with
gcc and experiment with the optional's Jamfile.
The just committed Optional's test suite now includes failure cases.
--
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes
I've fixed Optional for MSV6.0
Once the regression tests are updated, I'll see if I can fix it for the
other compilers too.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I've fixed Optional for MSV6.0
Once the regression tests are updated, I'll see if I can fix it for the
other compilers too.
I'm looking at the new regression tests. VC6.0 final
Daniel Yerushalmi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b15dfk$h89$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b15dfk$h89$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In visual C 7
The result are:
Thanks...
but I was unforgivable lazy and post an Ill-formed program (should have
tested first!)
Could you tyr again with this corrected
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
007701c2c6d2$0ef89880$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:007701c2c6d2$0ef89880$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
templateclass T
struct X
{
X ( X const ) ;
templateclass U X ( XU const ) ;
} ;
As a
there is int_c already, remove next/prior from integral_c
altoghether.
(b) add a special enum_c.
What do you think?
--
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi, I'm having the following problem (?) with mpl::integral_c.
Since it is intended to encapsulate an Integral Constant,
I thought that it
- Original Message -
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: boost [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Aleksey Gurtovoy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 9:58 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: boost/mpl/integral_c.hpp
today. Indeed, version 1.10
(the previous) works fine. (that is, I was able to build the FS library)
I attach here the compiler output using the -Q compiler option (which shows
extended error information).
Fernando Cacciola
Borland C++ 5.5.1 for Win32 Copyright (c) 1993, 2000 Borland
..\src
::is_convertible_implref_type,To::value,
::boost::type_traits::ice_not
::boost::is_arrayTo::value
::value
::value)
);
};
BOOST_TT_AUX_BOOL_TRAIT_DEF2(is_convertible,From,To,::boost::detail::is_conv
ertible_forwarderFrom,To::value))
#endif
--
Fernando
integral_cT, T(value - 1) prior;
Hey, does that one work for Borland, too? Maybe we could get rid of the
conditionals?
The conditionals for using 'N' instead of 'value' are still needed.
The c-style cast works, though.
--
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe
; };
struct E {};
struct F : CD {};
struct G : CE {};
Look at my recent thread: Current is_convertible borken for bcc5.5.1,
In my last message I posted a fix for bcc5.5.1.
--
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:03:05 -0300, Fernando Cacciola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Abrahams wrote:
On Tuesday, February 04, 2003 8:05 AM [GMT+1=CET],
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTE
merators to undefined behavior. Do we
really want that?
Good point, however, I think that the *intent* of 'integral_c' is to
represent values that are 'integral constant expressions', which paricularly
includes enumerations besides ordinary integral type values.
--
Fernando
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b1r24q$c16$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1r24q$c16$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
typedef integral_cT, (integral_cT, N::value) + 1 next;
typedef integral_cT, (integral_cT, N::value) - 1 prior;
[snip]
I agree, at least in theory;
Gennaro Prota wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:30:01 -0300, Fernando Cacciola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Enumerations are not integral types. Also, the presence of next and
prior exposes the use with enumerators to undefined behavior. Do we
{sorry if this appears twice... but the last post didn't seem to go thru}
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
OK, I can see the motivation: We can have a noncopyable class
and need an optional object of it.
Following optional semantics, it would be spelled:
boost
.
AFACIT there are many changes but they're all trivial.
I can assist them by indicating what to change, but I don't have the time
right now
to made the changes myself.
Thanks.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org
Eric Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b2s34c$bav$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b2s34c$bav$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
[snip]
(3) variant dependency.
We are just about to review boost::variant.
I was planning to wrap optional around variant discarding its
Eric Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b2s4b1$eof$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b2s4b1$eof$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
I'm trying the variant library, by currently it doesn't
compile with bcc551.
I'd like to be able to compile it with my compiler so I can
;
#if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__)
#pragma option pop
#endif
}
--
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
. What's wrong with it? What does optionalT add?
Exactly. An optional reference is almost like a possibly null pointer,
except that references
must be bounded.
If given a particular design you would need optionalT, then you
definitely need T* instead.
--
Fernando
be NULL. (T
in this case is int)
--
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any idea about what to do with reference to reference problem?
What's the problem?
Currently, optionalY has:
explicit optional ( T c
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
006901c2d9c2$1db8fa60$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:006901c2d9c2$1db8fa60$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
Fernando Cacciola (Home) wrote:
[...]
One is initialization from a null pointer value, as in:
struct C
{
C() : ptr(0) {}
shared_
is used many
times in the same object, gathering m_initialized types and m_storage in
separate lists:
What for ?
--
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
1 - 100 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
