Hi, On Saturday, June 28, 2014 16:44:45 Atgeirr Rasmussen wrote: > I assume that it would not increase the minimum required version we require > of boost?
AFAICS, no. (It is available in boost 1.44.) cheers Andreas > 28. juni 2014 kl. 18:31 skrev Andreas Lauser <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > > > Some remarks from the offender (i.e. me) seem to be appropriate. I've > > chosen boost::regex because: > > > > - it is the library which got graduated to std:: in c++-2011, so that the > > code changes should be minimal once GCC 4.9 is the minimum supported > > compiler version of OPM > > - we already use quite a few boost libraries, so adding another one to the > > prerequisites seemed natural > > - I did not know about regex.h (*booohhh*) > > > > have a nice (remaining) weekend > > > > Andreas > > > > On Saturday, June 28, 2014 15:40:55 Joakim Hove wrote: > >> Hello; > >> > >> In the PR: https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/pull/249 Andreas has > >> implemented support for regex matching of keywords in the deck. We need > >> this functionality, and modulo minor fixes I intend to merge this PR. > >> However, the PR uses Boost::regex; so going with it as it is now will > >> introduce a Boost::regex dependeny through the whole stack. As I see it > >> there are two possibilities: > >> > >> > >> 1. Take the PR as is and accept the Boost::regex dependency - that > >> might be perfectly OK? > >> > >> 2. Use C/Posix regex.h. > >> > >> Any opinions? Whatever choice we make we should preferably switch to > >> std::regex when we switch to a sufficiently new g++ compiler. > >> > >> Joakim > > _______________________________________________ > Opm mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm -- Notice: "String" and "Thread" are the same thing to non-computing people. — Programming.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
