Eric Lemings wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Lemings
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:24 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: structure of tuple tests ([Fwd: Re: svn commit:
r675044 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x: include/rw/_tuple.h
include/tuple tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp
tests/utilities/20.tuple.creation.cpp
tests/utilities/20.tuple.h tests/utilities/20.tuple.helpers
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Lemings
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:47 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: structure of tuple tests ([Fwd: Re: svn commit:
r675044 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x: include/rw/_tuple.h
include/tuple tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp
tests/utilities/20.tuple.creation.cpp
tests/utilities/20.tuple.h tests/utilities/20.tuple.helpers
...
In 20.tuple.cnstr.cpp you might also be able to get rid of
<cstring> by using rw_strncmp(). You should also be able
to use rw_equal() instead of defining a special helper (if
rw_equal() doesn't do something we need to do in the tuple
tests maybe we could extend it?)
Was not aware of those. I'll try to reuse them.
I believe this is a safe enhancement to rw_equal() but I just
wanna make sure:
template <class T, class U = T>
inline int rw_equal (T x, U y)
{
return x == y;
}
This would allow comparison of different but compatible types
which is needed for heterogenous tuple types. Anyone see a
problem with it?
One problem with rw_equal(), as it relates to tuple tests, is that the
arguments are copied. This poses a problem for user-defined types (esp.
UserDefined) which keeps track of and more importantly tests such
things.
I don't think it would be possible to change rw_equal() as follows:
template <class T, class U = T>
inline bool rw_equal (const T& x, const U& y)
{
return x == y;
}
Or would it?
I can't think of a reason why not (except for the default
template argument -- they're not allowed on functions; but
here the default isn't necessary).
Brad.
