___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
At the top of signal.hpp:
namespace boost {
#ifndef BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION
namespace BOOST_SIGNALS_NAMESPACE {
namespace detail {
templateint Arity,
typename Signature,
typename Combiner,
typename Group,
On Monday 07 July 2003 05:06 pm, Jens Maurer wrote:
I've updated the current Boost.Random CVS to the interface
contained in the C++ library TR proposal:
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1452.html
The boost documentation has not yet been updated, I hope to be able
to
On Monday 07 July 2003 05:06 pm, Jens Maurer wrote:
I've updated the current Boost.Random CVS to the interface
contained in the C++ library TR proposal:
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1452.html
The boost documentation has not yet been updated, I hope to be able
to
At 06:25 PM 7/7/2003, =?windows-1252?Q?JOAQUIN_LOPEZ_MU=3FZ?= wrote:
Hi Beman,
- Mensaje Original -
[...]
* The multiindex_set name seems awkward to me. Maybe
indexed_set or
set_index?
I don't like the name either, and would be happy if someone comes
with something better.
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 08:01 am, Neal D. Becker wrote:
On Monday 07 July 2003 05:06 pm, Jens Maurer wrote:
I've updated the current Boost.Random CVS to the interface
contained in the C++ library TR proposal:
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1452.html
The boost
David Abrahams wrote:
A problem with this is that the introspection information is only
available at runtime. A more-flexible system would use GCC-XML output
to generate something like:
template
struct class_Driver
{
typedef mpl::vectorPerson bases;
At 05:54 PM 7/7/2003, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
A half-way solution is to have something like:
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL_NUMBERS(x,y,IsEqual)
and let users specify their own Preciates.
There is BOOST_CHECK_PREDICATE
By default, the Test library could provide
a straight-forward ABSOLUTE-ERROR
Neal D. Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 07 July 2003 05:06 pm, Jens Maurer wrote:
I've updated the current Boost.Random CVS to the interface
contained in the C++ library TR proposal:
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1452.html
The boost documentation has
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Let's see what the lawyers say before worrying too much about what
may be a non-issue.
I'd like to add some of my concerns to the list.
First of all let me say that I fully realize that we just got a ton
of free legal advice and
Rozental, Gennadiy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A half-way solution is to have something like:
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL_NUMBERS(x,y,IsEqual)
and let users specify their own Preciates.
There is BOOST_CHECK_PREDICATE
Yes, I know.
My point was that with
David Abrahams wrote:
[...]
Now the disclaimer. I am not sure to what extent we are even
supposed to discuss such legal matters here; the public archives of
the mailing list can be used as evidence in a hypothetical future
lawsuit (SCO showed the way). So I won't go into details.
Heh.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
P.S. CPL == *WIN*-*WIN*
These legal issues are sufficiently confusing to overwhelm the brains
of most of us regular Boost people. Unless you are prepared to depart
from your usual hint-dropping style and explain why you think CPL is
better than what
Beman Dawes ha escrito:
[...]
I'm more interested in the class name than the namespace name. One problem
at a time. If you weren't worrying about the namespace name, would you then
like indexed_set as the class name? What are some other alternatives?
If we forget about the namespace name,
(not sure it's the right place to post this, but it seems smart_assert is
(or will) be part of boost, and I can't get the author email addresses. The
article is:
http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8464/cujcexp0308alexandr/)
Here's an excerpt of some code:
template class iterator_type
inline
David Abrahams wrote:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Why is the new license better?
I'll get the lawyers to comment on this in more detail, but here are
some answers as I understand them:
Big picture: it has been vetted by lawyers for reducing ambiguity
and risk for
David Abrahams wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
P.S. CPL == *WIN*-*WIN*
These legal issues are sufficiently confusing to overwhelm the brains
of most of us regular Boost people.
Uhmm. Your previous posting was not bad at all. ;-)
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unless you are prepared to depart
from your usual hint-dropping style and explain why you think CPL is
better than what we're considering, I think it's probably going to
remain... wherever it is that droppings
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Why is the new license better?
I'll get the lawyers to comment on this in more detail, but here are
some answers as I understand them:
Big picture: it has been vetted by lawyers for
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Why is the new license better?
I'll get the lawyers to comment on this in more detail, but here are
some answers as I understand them:
Big picture: it has been vetted by lawyers for
Glen Knowles wrote:
[...]
The Common Public License already has a section in the wiki and fails
the boost requirements as shown.
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License/Common_Public_License
Yeah. That review process was really entertaining. Thanks for the
On Wednesday 9 July 2003 05:48, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Common Public License
The CPL is incompatible with the GPL. Whatever licence Boost settles on,
it has to be compatible with the GPL. At least, unless you actually
_want_ to force developers of GPL software to throw Boost out and
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Glen Knowles wrote:
[...]
The Common Public License already has a section in the wiki and fails
the boost requirements as shown.
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License/Common_Public_License
Yeah. That review process was really
David Abrahams wrote:
[... P.S./P.P.S./P.P.P.S./P.P.P.P.S. ...]
Thanks for the information. I've bookmarked everything.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Please don't infringe upon my concepts and methods.
We can struck a licensing deal, of course.
___
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glen Knowles wrote:
[...]
The Common Public License already has a section in the wiki and fails
the boost requirements as shown.
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License/Common_Public_License
Yeah. That review
Title: RE: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
From: Alexander Terekhov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The Common Public License already has a section in the wiki and fails
the boost requirements as shown.
Ross Smith wrote:
On Wednesday 9 July 2003 05:48, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Common Public License
The CPL is incompatible with the GPL.
Translation: RMS just hates patents. (and DMCA, of course)
Alexander Nasonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, sometimes it's needed at compile-time. Though, I don't know how useful
it is. Can you give an example?
Heh, you caught me!
Well, if the (member) (function) pointers are available at compile
time they can be inlined away so that using them
Peter Dimov wrote:
[...]
The answers to questions 12 and 18 from
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
seem problematic.
Well,
http://ntxshape.sourceforge.net/opensource.html
WRT q12:
quote
The Lesser GPL used to be called the Library GPL. For historical
David Abrahams wrote:
[...]
As for Must not require that the source code be available for
execution or other binary uses of the library... well, what's the
problem? www.boost.org was pretty stable, thus far.
The problem is that we don't want to force companies to assume the
risk that
Glen Knowles wrote:
[...]
Now you're arguing that the boost license requirements should be
changed in order to make them compatible with the CPL? That's a bit of
a stretch, especially since I like the boost requirements as they are.
Frankly, I think that boost requirements make no sense. As
It appears that the current tools/build/como-tools.jam is
not usable on Unix. For example, the linker action
causes REM lines to be passed to the Unix shell, which
does not work.
It looks to me that como-win32-tools.jam contains the Win32
configuration now, so I'd like to completely redo
Jens Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It appears that the current tools/build/como-tools.jam is
not usable on Unix. For example, the linker action
causes REM lines to be passed to the Unix shell, which
does not work.
It looks to me that como-win32-tools.jam contains the Win32
Jens Maurer wrote:
It appears that the current tools/build/como-tools.jam is
not usable on Unix. For example, the linker action
causes REM lines to be passed to the Unix shell, which
does not work.
It looks to me that como-win32-tools.jam contains the Win32
configuration now, so I'd like to
I think this would be excellent (and overdue). It needs to support double and
long double (and facilitate UDTs too if possible).
There is also the matter of signalling and quiet NaN. Although signalling NaN
may cause an hardware exception if enabled, I suspect it is more useful if isnan
returns
At 05:06 PM 7/8/2003, Martin Wille wrote:
Jens Maurer wrote:
It appears that the current tools/build/como-tools.jam is
not usable on Unix. For example, the linker action
causes REM lines to be passed to the Unix shell, which
does not work.
It looks to me that como-win32-tools.jam contains
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
If we forget about the namespace name, then I have no objections against
indexed_set (though std::sets are indexed by nature, but this is
probably not
a common perception between users).
I thought long and hard about name candidates and come up with none
except
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Neal,
I don't think Jens has had much time for this stuff and now that the
proposal is accepted most of the discussion has been taking place on
the committee standard libraries reflector. I suggest you post your
questions there.
Could
38 matches
Mail list logo
