I think scoped_ptr needs to remain as it is. If we need this
functionality a new scoped_deallocator may be the way to go.
On Thursday, Apr 3, 2003, at 11:04 Europe/London, Peter Dimov wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
We find ourselves in want of a custom deallocator for scoped_ptr, but
no such
, 2003, at 09:24 America/Denver, Alisdair Meredith
wrote:
Greg Colvin wrote:
std::exception used to have a why() member that returned the list of
exceptions leading to the one caught. Is that part of what you want?
Not exactly. I'm not too bothered about the history of the exceptions,
I'm simply
EXCEPT.DOC
Description: MS-Word document
On Friday, Mar 21, 2003, at 11:51 America/Denver, Gennaro Prota wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:06:45 -0700, Greg Colvin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea of the why() member was to preserve context when one
exception
gets caught and a different one gets
On Thursday, Mar 20, 2003, at 11:33 America/Denver, Brian Gray wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 04:50 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
Without runtime library support it will be difficult to do, but not
impossible --
the Oracle runtime has platform-specific code for capturing the stack
trace
std::exception once had a where() member for this purpose, but it
didn't survive.
Without runtime library support it will be difficult to do, but not
impossible --
the Oracle runtime has platform-specific code for capturing the stack
trace on all
the of the many platforms we support. I can't
At 06:06 AM 3/12/2003, Gennaro Prota wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:15:48 -0800, Jaap Suter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The effect is the same.
However, (a) or BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( true ) avoids all of the
(potential?) problems you are worrying about. So why do you prefer
(b)?
Because if we
#define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( B ) \
typedef void BOOST_JOIN(boost_static_assert_typedef_, __LINE__)
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
At 06:23 PM 3/9/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
is ; legal where a declaration is expected?
class X
{
; // legal?
};
Comeau says it isn't:
MODE:strict errors C++
ComeauTest.c, line 3: error: extra ; ignored,
In C: A function definition does not end with a semicolon
In C++: A
What are you trying to do?
Usually weak_ptr is used as the value in a map with some other key, so
that just being in the map doesn't prevent an object from being deleted.
At 06:52 PM 3/7/2003, Joe Gottman wrote:
I just realized that it would be impossible to use weak_ptr with any
hash. The
(d) It makes it easier to work with a fixed-width terminal
or terminal emulator.
You may think this is an obsolete requirment, but I spend
most of my working days using a VT-100 emulator connected
to various servers running just Oracle, gdb, gcc, vi, and
a shell.
At 09:34 AM 3/6/2003, Paul
templatetypename T,T* p,void (T::*f)(int)
void callback(int i) { (p-*f)(i); }
At 08:02 AM 3/4/2003, Marc Jacobs wrote:
I'm trying to use a member function as a callback to a C-style library. I've
got the bind working by itself, but the resulting function object does not
convert to the type
At 01:10 PM 3/4/2003, Jason House wrote:
James Curran wrote:
Both the Standard MSVC6 allow a (const char*) as a template parameter.
What is rejected (by both) is a text literal parameter. For a non-type
parameter, the value must be a constant across all translation units linked
At 10:16 AM 3/1/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
Greg Colvin wrote:
Which is why the original releaser proposal is not in the standard.
There are just too many different kinds of resource, with too many
different ways of acquiring and releasing them. So it wasn't clear
that any general
At 03:46 AM 2/28/2003, Joel de Guzman wrote:
Terje Slettebø wrote:
You don't need to know the template parameters to know that it
is a *pair*. That's the big difference. The template parameter is an
abstract concept. Detached from the parameters, it is still a pair.
The same does
not
hold
At 09:16 AM 2/28/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Alisdair Meredith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Dimov wrote:
It depends on the choice of template parameters, of course. If you go the PB
way, resource is definitely a contender:
This is definitely the direction I was thinking. Otherwise, we
When Mark Terribile proposed a class like this way back in
the last century I think he called it releaser.
At 04:00 PM 2/25/2003, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
This is an excellent point. One doesn't go looking for a class
named smart_ptr or a library named Boost.SmartPointer when
looking to
At 03:34 AM 2/23/2003, Thomas Witt wrote:
Greg,
I can not figure out how you make sure to satisfy the alignment constraints of
T and counted_base_header_impl. Any hint would be appreciated.
I just used two char arrays, thinking there was a dispensation
somewhere in the standard to allow for
The weather kept me at home today, so I had time to hack in
a new constructor for shared_ptr that keeps the count in a
header which is allocated along with the counted object.
Like intrusive_ptr, but intrusive in a different way. If
anyone has time to apply the patches and see if it is as
fast as
Any thoughts on this issue?
From: Steve Clamage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: C++ core language mailing list
Message c++std-core-9820
Some compilers implement thread-local storage (TLS) for what would
otherwise be global variables. The compiler and runtime system
arrange for each thread to see its own
At 03:56 AM 2/15/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
... in the standards committee we operate in the
rarified air where all compilers are perfectly conforming (just
kidding, but it's almost like that).
It is indeed like that. There wasn't a compiler in
the world that could handle the standard library
It wouldn't be too difficult to write a custom deallocator
for shared_ptr that supported release of ownership. Given
the dangers I'd rather see it done that way than by adding
a release() function to shared_ptr.
And I don't see a problem with adding constructors to
scoped_ptr that support custom
At 07:25 PM 2/4/2003, Paul Mensonides wrote:
...
If an implicit conversion to the pointed-to type is provided, there is no need to
overload the subscript operator:
...
The same applies to the standing problem of operator-*().
2c.
Yep. More reasons why I prefer that smart pointers have an
At 09:41 AM 2/1/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
See http://www.boost.org/more/cpp_committee_meetings.html. While the
general public isn't invited to committee meetings, Boost technical
experts are welcome.
So how would I qualify myself as a Boost technical expert?
Just show
At 09:53 AM 1/31/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
...
In fact, I have been arguing for years that our smart pointers should
never have had a public interface which adopts unmanaged resources on
construction. Instead, we should write:
std::auto_ptrT = std::auto_ptr_newT(arg1, arg2, arg3);
Voila,
At 10:48 AM 1/31/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 09:53 AM 1/31/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
...
In fact, I have been arguing for years that our smart pointers should
never have had a public interface which adopts unmanaged resources on
construction. Instead
At 01:44 PM 1/31/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
The move/forwarding proposals will fix that. In the meantime we have
boost::ref(x)... ugly but effective.
Can you give us link to that proposal?
You can find it in
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/mailings/papers/2002/pre_santacruz.zip
At 04:10 PM 1/31/2003, David B. Held wrote:
I've seen some talk of fully in-memory databases, and have a few
questions:
1) Does anyone have any experience with them?
Yes.
2) Would people use them if there were a nice library available?
Yes.
It seems that such a library could benefit from the
At 06:23 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe A. Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b19hhg$i2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b19hhg$i2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
list shifted_ptrT took 7.1966276647 seconds to reconstruct 2000
times.
[...]
At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Jeff Garland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn --
Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
A licensing question for everyone:
Is there any
At 08:16 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would you indulge me and try the benchmark again with the enclosed
shared_count patch applied and #undef BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR? I
don't really know what's going on
At 09:12 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
From: Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:23 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
To be fair, a factor of two improvement cannot just be shrugged off. But
one
point to keep in mind is that
shared_ptrX px(new X);
performs two allocations. We can
At 11:38 AM 1/30/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
I read a paper yesterday from the latest OOPSLA proceedings
that argued that a class-specific new is almost never a win
compared to a high-quality general purpose allocator like
LEA.
Pointer
At 01:10 PM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Jeff Garland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn --
Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least
At 06:24 PM 1/30/2003, Howard Hinnant wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 11:19 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
My problem with auto_ptr isn't so much the semantics, which
have proved useful and are probably the minimum needed to
solve the problem that the committee wanted solved. And it
isn't so
I notice that a special operator new must be used
to create objects pointed to by shifted_ptr. Is
this really necessaty? It prevents shifted_ptr
from just being an alternative implementation of
shared_ptr.
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
At 09:37 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
It should be noted that the constructor taking a custom
At 10:08 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
At 11:42 AM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
...
Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated.
Disavowing your child? ;)
With extreme prejudice.
Not everyone agrees with you. After all,
we still have scoped_ptr and a move proposal
At 08:25 PM 1/28/2003, Edward Diener wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
At 01:42 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
At 03:47 PM 1/27/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
At 04:25 PM 1/24/2003, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
Just out of curiosity, which boost libraries are likely to be proposed
to
the committee?
See
At 05:13 PM 1/27/2003, David B. Held wrote:
Edward Diener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b14fuc$hh0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b14fuc$hh0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b14cq2$2km$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b14cq2$2km$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
This
At 12:11 PM 1/19/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
As interesting as this may be, the discussion of string literals as
template parameters is off-topic for this group. Please either
connect this discussion back to library design or take it elsewhere.
Agreed. An interesting question is how to design
At 05:24 PM 1/19/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
038e01c2bf0e$cc8f35a0$cb6c6f50@pc">news:038e01c2bf0e$cc8f35a0$cb6c6f50@pc...
I'm also all for simplicity, cohesion, decoupling, do the simplest thing
that could possibly work (XP/pragmatic
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
At 03:11 AM 1/14/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:
Stefano Delli Ponti said:
From: William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Abrahams said:
William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People said they wanted it, and the cost is low (one int). I think
Greg is right that they wanted to attempt
Perhaps more progress would be made if the quest for
the one best example is dropped in favor of a small
series of examples?
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
At 02:53 PM 1/10/2003, Beman Dawes wrote:
...
Some platforms are so limited they fall outside the standard's hosted category, and
we don't have to worry about them.
Some platforms are fully featured, so again no worries.
What you are worrying about seems to me to be platforms which might
At 03:15 PM 1/10/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:
From: Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:18 AM 1/10/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Martin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. The user needs a localised
At 01:32 PM 1/9/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:
From: William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Stefano Delli Ponti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Stefano Delli Ponti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
William E. Kempf [EMAIL
At 09:23 AM 1/7/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
From: William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that extending it to free memory in cycles would be a great idea.
Of course, this opens a large can of worms about how to handle destruction
of objects which refer to each other...
One possible approach is
At 05:09 PM 1/6/2003, David B. Held wrote:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Howard Hinnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, I see your point. How about:
template class T
struct my_container
: if_
and_
At 08:19 PM 1/6/2003, Joel de Guzman wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
P.S. Outputting Hello, world in a way that generates significantly
more code than the run-time version is probably not a good way to
endear users to metaprogramming. ;
Again,
At 12:56 PM 1/4/2003, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
Greg Colvin wrote:
If it was run-time C++, I would be happy with 'apply_tuple',
but in MPL domain tuple isn't really the right word, and I
don't like 'apply_seq' or, worse yet, 'apply_sequence'. Or
should it be 'seq_apply' (from an English
At 09:47 AM 12/17/2002, you wrote:
I hope it is permissible to ask a mp question.
I'd like to have a template parameter is an int. If represents an
arithmetic shift of an integral value. If the parameter is positive
I'd like to shift left, and if negative shift right.
Is it feasible to
At 01:34 PM 12/17/2002, Greg Colvin wrote:
At 09:47 AM 12/17/2002, you wrote:
I hope it is permissible to ask a mp question.
I'd like to have a template parameter is an int. If represents an
arithmetic shift of an integral value. If the parameter is positive
I'd like to shift left
At 02:58 PM 12/9/2002, you wrote:
At 03:53 PM 12/8/2002, Gennaro Prota wrote:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 13:16:24 -0700, Greg Colvin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may be time to post a question to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you very much. What is that? An internal list for the C++
committee? Is it open
It may be time to post a question to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:59 PM 12/8/2002, you wrote:
--- Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying I hold the truth. I'm offering my reading, just as others
are doing.
Yeah, that's ok. I meant: it's unlikely that we can really find a
quote
At 02:53 PM 12/3/2002, you wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
If I understand you correctly, those are counts of the number of files.
Yes. The visible tendency is to provide all formats: zip/gz/bzip2. Previous
releases
At 06:30 PM 12/3/2002, Sean Parent wrote:
on 12/3/02 1:44 PM, Terje Slettebø at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is Adobe asking for more from a non-profit community like Boost, than they
are willing to give themselves, for software they sell? This license is for
the free Acrobat Reader, but I doubt
59 matches
Mail list logo
