On Feb 5, 2014, at 6:50 PM, Belcourt, Kenneth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. Thanks. This is the workflow I’m trying to build here in the group. Someone proposes a change, others review it. But it won’t work if no one looks at other people’s changes. — Marshall _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-maint
