For the past few weeks, some posters were talking about streambufs that
can decorate another stream buffer. I wrote up a second version at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/filter_stream.hpp.
It moves the calling functions to the stream buffer class. It adds
example filtering
Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
lock()...
if (thread() == f1 || thread() == f2)
{
thread()..(whatever casts)...m_list;
}
unlock()...
// I think the only way to do this is by mapping the thread's id
// with the object's address
Ed Brey wrote:
[...]
In the use case I am asking about, which is typical for shrink-wrap
software, only the libraries are pre-existing. The main program,
the help files, and the read-me file are all brand new and they are
all created together and are used together. It would be seem
Maxim Egorushkin wrote:
[... ala Alexandrescu volatiles ...]
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3EE84807.DD00F4D0%40web.de
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3EE861E5.13B60F31%40web.de
(Subject: Re: volatile keyword usage philosophy (long!))
regards,
alexander.
(My mail server was down yesterday so your post didn't
get through to me and I cannot answer it properly).
Fernando wrote:
This looks fine in general.
I've needed something like it so I'm intereseted on seeing this on
boost.
Some issues:
(1)
Why 'index' instead of 'key'? Associative containers
(My mail server was down yesterday so your post didn't
get through to me and I cannot answer it properly).
Arkadiy wrote:
We may use this to provide a better table implementation for the
Relational
Template Library, we are currently working on.
Right now we are using a sorted vector instead of a
Iobind is a library for converting objects to and from string or streams.
The main features of IoBind are:
- serialization of all STL containers (through range functions)
- use of policies to create new serializers. For example, to serialize
and associative container,
you can combine
It's only minor:
But boost::filesystem and boost::date_time have string conversion
methods such as
string()
native_file_string()
to_simple_string()
where as boost::format (and also stringstreams in the STL) have
str()
I don't know about the other libraries? Is there a standard for this in
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 06:04 PM, Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
Suppose you have:
struct functor1
{
listvoid * m_list;
void operator () ()
{
...
}
};
struct functor2
{
listvoid * m_list;
void operator () ()
{
Philippe A. Bouchard said:
William E. Kempf wrote:
Philippe A. Bouchard said:
William E. Kempf wrote:
[...]
As already pointed out, to associate data with a thread you use
thread_specific_ptr. BTW, you still have to remember that the
functor is copied, and data passed to/in the
If I understand correctly, with your approach:
(a, b, null) == (a, b, c1), and
(a, b, null) == (a, b, c2), but
(a, b, c1) != (a, b, c2)
If this is correct, I am afraid that whether or not such a predicate works
correctly may depend on a particular implementation of std::set...?
Arkadiy
Ed
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fernando wrote:
This looks fine in general.
I've needed something like it so I'm intereseted on seeing this on
boost.
Some issues:
(1)
Why 'index' instead of 'key'? Associative containers use the term key
instead
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maxim Egorushkin wrote:
[... ala Alexandrescu volatiles ...]
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3EE84807.DD00F4D0%40web.de
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3EE861E5.13B60F31%40web.de
(Subject: Re:
Fernando Cacciola ha escrito:
(1)
Why 'index' instead of 'key'? Associative containers use the term key
instead of index,
since index is typically related with random access instead of look up
access.
[...]
C++ already has the concept of an Associative Container, and this
concept
Howard Hinnant wrote:
[...]
Or were you wanting one thread to be able to access another thread's
listvoid*? To be able to do that, I think you would have to create
your own map.
I wanted to do both; this gives a good overview...
Thanks people,
Philippe A. Bouchard
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
If I understand correctly, with your approach:
(a, b, null) == (a, b, c1), and
(a, b, null) == (a, b, c2), but
(a, b, c1) != (a, b, c2)
If this is correct, I am afraid that whether or not such a predicate
works correctly may depend on a particular implementation
I did a search in the archives and found nothing on this:
Why is there no strict-ownership smart-pointer in boost? Just curious to
know what the reasons are. Thanks,
Oliver
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 14:38 America/Denver, Boost wrote:
I did a search in the archives and found nothing on this:
Why is there no strict-ownership smart-pointer in boost? Just curious
to
know what the reasons are. Thanks,
What do want beyond what boost::scoped_ptr and std::auto_ptr
-Original Message-
From: Gregory Colvin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 5:42 PM
To: Boost mailing list
Subject: Re: [boost] why no strict ownership smart pointer in boost
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 14:38 America/Denver, Boost wrote:
I did a search
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 17:36 America/Denver, Schoenborn, Oliver
wrote:
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 14:38 America/Denver, Boost wrote:
I did a search in the archives and found nothing on this:
Why is there no strict-ownership smart-pointer in boost?
Just curious
to
know what the reasons
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 17:36 America/Denver, Schoenborn, Oliver
wrote:
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 14:38 America/Denver, Boost wrote:
Why is there no strict-ownership smart-pointer in boost?
Just curious to know what the reasons are. Thanks,
What do want beyond what
I was playing with the new iterator adapters in the sandbox. As I was
looking at filter_iterator, I found that it allows user code to increment it
like a random access iterator. Here is an example that compiled on VC 7.1
#include boost/iterator/filter_iterator.hpp
#include iterator
#include
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 08:21 PM, Schoenborn, Oliver wrote:
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 17:36 America/Denver, Schoenborn, Oliver
wrote:
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 14:38 America/Denver, Boost wrote:
Why is there no strict-ownership smart-pointer in boost?
Just curious to know what the
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje news:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
[...]
C++ already has the concept of an Associative Container, and this
concept includes that of a 'Key'. In std terms, a 'key' can be
integrated with the value type (ala 'set') or not (ala 'map');
so this
Howard Hinnant wrote:
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 08:21 PM, Schoenborn, Oliver wrote:
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 17:36 America/Denver, Schoenborn, Oliver
wrote:
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 14:38 America/Denver, Boost wrote:
Why is there no strict-ownership smart-pointer in boost?
Just curious
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 08:21 PM, Schoenborn, Oliver wrote:
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 17:36 America/Denver, Schoenborn, Oliver
wrote:
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 14:38 America/Denver, Boost wrote:
Why is there no strict-ownership smart-pointer in boost?
Just curious to
26 matches
Mail list logo
