RE: [boost] date_time, lexical_cast and MSVC 7.0
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:38:46 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote > At 09:02 AM 6/24/2003, Jeff Garland wrote: > > >... I wonder if we should consider releasing 1.30.1 ... > > The Variant Library has been added, so it would be 1.31.0. And, yes, > I think we should start talking about a schedule. I was thinking of just a patch release to fix the one lexical_cast file, but a full release would work too. Have we ever been done a small patch release to fix a couple critical bugs? I know we've discussed it, but I don't ever remember one... Jeff ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RE: [boost] date_time, lexical_cast and MSVC 7.0
At 09:02 AM 6/24/2003, Jeff Garland wrote: >... I wonder if we should consider releasing 1.30.1 ... The Variant Library has been added, so it would be 1.31.0. And, yes, I think we should start talking about a schedule. --Beman ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RE: [boost] date_time, lexical_cast and MSVC 7.0
> >From: "Philip Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Now, the reason for my posting. I am using MSVC 7.0 and am unable to > > compile the date_time library tests. Compiling time_parsing.hpp gives > > me an error in lexical_cast, where there is no output operator for the > > lexical_cast compiled for the function > > parse_delimited_time_duration.But the test regression results for > > date_time indicates that all tests pass for MSVC 7.0. What am I doing > > wrong? > > It could be a couple of things going wrong. First, there were some problems > with lexical_cast that were discovered after 1.30 was shipped, so they are > fixed in the CVS, but not in the file release. Unless you've done it, I > suggest getting the latest file from the CVS. I seem to recall someone else running across this and fixing it with the lexical_cast upgrade. Unfortunately, I can't find this in the archive at the moment... If this turns out to be the case, I wonder if we should consider releasing 1.30.1 with the fixed lexical_cast? Jeff ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] date_time, lexical_cast and MSVC 7.0
>From: "Philip Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Now, the reason for my posting. I am using MSVC 7.0 and am unable to > compile the date_time library tests. Compiling time_parsing.hpp gives > me an error in lexical_cast, where there is no output operator for the > lexical_cast compiled for the function > parse_delimited_time_duration.But the test regression results for > date_time indicates that all tests pass for MSVC 7.0. What am I doing > wrong? It could be a couple of things going wrong. First, there were some problems with lexical_cast that were discovered after 1.30 was shipped, so they are fixed in the CVS, but not in the file release. Unless you've done it, I suggest getting the latest file from the CVS. Secondly, unless you already have it, try enabling wchar_t as an intrinsic type (option "Zc:wchar_t"). Otherwise, it will treat unsigned char and wchar_t as synonyms. Regards, Terje ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] date_time, lexical_cast and MSVC 7.0
Hello, Since this is my first posting to the Boost List, let me first say thanks for Boost. It looks like a great resource! My first use of Boost will be the date_time library, followed by the file_system library. Now, the reason for my posting. I am using MSVC 7.0 and am unable to compile the date_time library tests. Compiling time_parsing.hpp gives me an error in lexical_cast, where there is no output operator for the lexical_cast compiled for the function parse_delimited_time_duration.But the test regression results for date_time indicates that all tests pass for MSVC 7.0. What am I doing wrong? I sincerely appreciate any help. Thanks, Phil For what it is worth: I changed the template parameter for the lexical_cast from unsigned short to int, and everything seems to compile and all date_time tests pass. But I would prefer to use an "official" Boost release and not my own hacked version. Plus I would like to understand why my system is encountering different results than the boost regression test indicates. ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
