Dear Boosters,
All of our codes are now built on top of boost. Since we might use Cray
vector computers more in the future (finally they provides a
standard-conforming C++ standard library in release 3.6) we started
porting our codes to the Cray. I did not run the full test suite, but
just
1.) it seems that Cray C++ with the -h conform option, which enforces
strict standard conformance does not compile this code in
boost/filesystem/operations.hpp
class directory_iterator
: public boost::iterator std::input_iterator_tag,
path, std::ptrdiff_t, const path *,
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, the policy_ptr code in the sandbox features a policy adaptor
that automagically detects specified policies, and fills in defaults, in any
order. However, it requires that the user specify policies using MPL
Lambda syntax. And that still
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think Peter also values the fact that boost::shared_ptr has few
dependencies on other boost code, a problem I don't see such an easy
way out of.
That's definitely important since so much other Boost code depends on it.
But let's assume for the sake of
Edward Diener [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In Boost.Python I'm using a system for interfaces such as this one
where optional template parameters can be passed in any order. I'm
using the properties
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:11:39 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I think you all know, if you have something like
enum e { e1 = 1u 31 };
then it simply promotes e1 to int instead of unsigned int. For
instance this
enum e { e1
From: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand the concern. For one thing, we don't have template
typedefs,
yet, although me may get a similar effect (if not the same type) with
e.g.:
templateclass T
struct shared_ptr : smart_ptrT,
Ronald Garcia wrote:
Here's the version blurb:
Edison Design Group C/C++ Front End, version 2.43.1 (Jan 16
2001 11:20:19)
Copyright 1988-1999 Edison Design Group, Inc.
KAI C++ 4.0d (KCC) -- Jan 16 2001 -- (C) Copyright 1994-2000 Kuck
Associates,
Inc.
Thanks!
AFAIK It supports
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:24:13 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aleksey and I were just discussing this one. As soon as he's done
implementing the for_ algorithm it could look like this:
template unsigned long N // N must be an *octal* constant
struct binary
: for_N, _1,
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Edward Diener [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In Boost.Python I'm using a system for interfaces such as
At 07:33 AM 1/18/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
From: Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please don't take this to mean I'm against a
policy-based smart pointer; quite the opposite. I've
said all along it would be great to have one in boost.
I've even
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:11:39 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I think you all know, if you have something like
enum e { e1 = 1u 31 };
then it simply promotes e1 to int instead of unsigned
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One aspect of the semantic complexity that bothers me
is that the various flavors of smart pointer may not
be interchangeable. shared_ptr is partly parameterized
on implementation, but the interface and semantics
remain the same. For a policy-based
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not that I think the application to binary literals is particularly
important, but an elegant implementation would be possible if string
literals and [] operator were allowed in constant expressions; this
way one could easily extract characters from a
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Edward Diener wrote:
[...]
the system for setting default parameters somehow being changed to solve
this problem, so that a user can override a default without having to
override all
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
In Boost.Python I'm using a system for interfaces such as this one
where optional template parameters can be passed in any order.
I'm using the properties of the type to detect their meaning.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:06:06 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. But does it print anything in this case?
if (e1 0)
std::cout whoops\n;
Then I'd be worried.
Then you are worried ;-)
Genny.
___
Unsubscribe other
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
In Boost.Python I'm using a system for interfaces such as this one
where optional template parameters can be passed in any order.
I'm using the
From: Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 07:33 AM 1/18/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
It is not simply declaration complexity that Dave's talking about - it
can
be avoided by making smart_ptrT be shared_ptrT by using default
parameters. It is semantic complexity. shared_ptr is fairly deep by
itself
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:13:45 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately
the committee seems on the road of prohibiting this and other similar
(and potentially more useful) uses of string
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Ronald Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there a way to get this to work without previously running the entire
boost test suite? I just want to test one library.
For testing one library, forget about report generation.
Just go to status/
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
Could you test if the following compiles successfully with the latest CVS
sources?
[...]
The code you posted compiles under KCC both with and without the --strict
command-line parameter. Hope this helps, and thank you.
Cheers,
ron
On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 07:36 PM, Daniel Yerushalmi wrote:
SNIP
I'll try to do it at least once to see which parts of boost we can use,
and see how much CPU time this gobbles up. If it is not too much, I
will talk to our sysadmins if they would allow me to do it about once a
month. I
Ronald Garcia wrote:
The code you posted compiles under KCC both with and without
the --strict command-line parameter.
Good, check out the latest CVS sources, then - the issue should be fixed
now.
Hope this helps, and thank you.
You are welcome!
Aleksey
On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 10:33 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
ii) the fast vector units do not help anything for compiling the code.
Just one question: why the heck don't they make a cross-compiler which
runs on a machine better-suited to compilation?
They have that, but it costs extra
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Huh? They're already prohibited.
I meant that they (you ;-)) want to prohibit any use of string
literals in constant expressions.
Nobody wants to.
Ah ok. Everybody has always been wanting to ;-)
Desires and intentions are sometimes different.
Fredrik Blomqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b0cvd7$4dv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b0cvd7$4dv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
-snip-
I thought the C++ template solution by Damian Conway was pretty neat,
-snip-
I thought so too at first, but at a closer look you can see that the code
in
practice
27 matches
Mail list logo
