On Feb 5, 2014, at 7:46 PM, Marshall Clow wrote: > > On Feb 3, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Marshall Clow <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Marshall Clow <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> P.S. My next change to function will be as simple as the last one, >>> but I’m going to make it a pull request to see how well it works. >> >> >> I lied. This was short enough that I didn’t do that. >> Next one for sure! (says Bullwinkle). >> >> >> This patch fixes two tests that were failing when built with libc++/c++11. >> The problem is in the tests - they were comparing two ostream & for equality. >> >> Strictly speaking, that’s not allowed. >> What was happening in C++03 was that they were being implicitly converted to >> void *, and the pointers compared. (this allowed the “if ( !stream)” idiom. >> In C++11, the conversion is to bool (not void *), and it is explicit - so >> this code no longer compiles: >> std::cout == std::cout. >> >> I changed the tests to use a different structure there, one with an actual >> operator==. >> (and removed some tabs) >> >> This should give Boost.Function an (almost) completely green test matrix. > > What I’m looking for here is for someone to take a look at the patch and say > “Yeah, that’s fine” or “no this needs work because of X, Y, and/or Z”
Yeah, this looks fine Marshall, sorry, I missed your previous post. Noel > > -- Marshall > > Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:[email protected]> > > A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is > promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). > -- Yu Suzuki > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-maint _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-maint
