>From: "Jason House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Terje Slettebų wrote: > > > > >From: "Jason House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Is there even a way to specify/change that? > > > > It isn't currently, as the fundamental types aren't handled as composite > > types, and therefore aren't formatted using any set format. Also, it seems > > it may not be possible in an obvious way. > > <snip> > > It appears to prefer the operator<<(char) stream member function, to this > > free function, as it isn't called when doing "std::cout << 'A';". > > :( > It would be a good question to figure out why that won't work, and how > to fix it... What happens, in general, if somebody want to override a > stream operator to do something else? Well, outputting UDTs work fine, as you can then overload the operator<<. However, as it's already overloaded, as a member function of the stream class, for the built-in types, it doesn't help to overload it for them. > String output probably uses > character output by default... it would be very bad to have a system > that made the string "string" (no quotes) output as 's''t''r''i''n''g' Yeah. :) basic_istream/basic_ostream have overloaded stream operators for CharType *, so they handle strings, in other words, the iostream versions of gets()/puts(). > > > Debugger friendly manipulation would be good. I still haven't thought > > > about how exactly outputting of an arbitrary composite variable will > > > work in the debugger by default... I agree that having a wrapper makes > > > it easy for the output formatting of general types, but actually being > > > able to execute "std::cout << my_suspect_variable" in the debugger > > > without premeditation still poses a significant problem. Why can't bugs > > > be predicted before you notice them? > > > > You're right, good point. Would it be possible to get some information on > > what kind of functions, if any, may be called in e.g. your debugger? From > > this, we may find what we can do. > > Well, I personally haven't gotten into the habit of calling functions > for any debugger. Me neither. > I know that gdb allows that... and last that I tried > it under the cygwin port, it wasn't very stable (but I kind of expect > that in a cygwin port). I do also remember hitting trouble trying to > call templated types. I believe that it could make calls to templated > functions, but you needed to know the "real" name for the function... > The base function name plus extra characters in order to distinguish > it... I might have gotten the "real" name off the call stack or > something like that... > > Does that help to define "my debugger"? I would hope to make it work > for as many debuggers as possible (provided that they at least support > making function calls) Well, I guess that in either case, this may be handled through layering, i.e. possibly providing convenience functions which calls the overloaded stream operators, if the latter is difficult to call from a debugger. Regards, Terje _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
