--On Monday, September 01, 2003 9:52 PM -0400 Brian McNamara
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip]
As a final aside, I think much of this thread is degenerating into
Parkinson's Bicycle Shed[*], with respect to is it a
pointer/container/X? At this point, I think we know what set of
methods should be
--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:00 PM -0400 Douglas Gregor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:36 pm, Mat Marcus wrote:
We're trying to use optional from 1.30.0 (sorry legal hasn't
approved our use of 1.30.2 yet). However on one compiler
(Metrowerks 8.3 PPC CFM) we're
--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 3:32 PM -0400 Douglas Paul Gregor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Mat Marcus wrote:
--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:00 PM -0400 Douglas Gregor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect they are both '4', but that leaves me even more confused
--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 10:48 PM -0300 Fernando Cacciola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
For this reason, and for the fact that I have some upcoming
deadlines at work, I'll summarize what I see and where I stand now,
then I'll step back a bit for a while.
I hope you come back
--On Sunday, August 31, 2003 9:56 PM -0400 Brian McNamara
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the use-case with the function returning a pair of iterators
that we'd like to assign to optionals via a tie(), I think there
should also be a different method in the interface which returns the
hole in
--On Monday, September 01, 2003 2:57 PM -0300 Fernando Cacciola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mat Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[snip]
After reading the documentation more carefully I learned that
optional models pointer behavior. I spelled out how the code might
look:
boost::tie
In this post I will put forward a use-case or two to help see whether
something a little different then the current version of optional
might be useful. I also begin making a case that a Concept like
PossiblyUninitializedVariable might be more generally useful than
OptionalPointee. As I mentioned
--On Sunday, August 31, 2003 10:29 AM -0400 Brian McNamara
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:34:39AM -0700, Mat Marcus wrote:
In this post I will put forward a use-case or two to help see
whether something a little different then the current version of
optional might
--On Sunday, August 31, 2003 1:35 PM -0400 Brian McNamara
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I completely disagree that optionals should mix the interfaces of
optional and the wrapped object into one. I think there should be an
explicit unwrapping operation. But this is just my opinion, based
on no
--On Friday, August 29, 2003 2:56 PM -0400 David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mat Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
### Question 2
In another case I am trying to use optional with iterator_adaptor
(1.30.x version).
Whoa; don't do that ;-
It'll hurt (comparitively speaking).
Here I would
--On Friday, August 29, 2003 4:02 PM -0400 David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mat Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, that's a slightly different issue and you may be right. On
the other hand, you can always define a type which implements those
implicit constructors:
template class T
It is not uncommon to use boost::function to hold on to the result of
boost::bind. Will that work for you?
- Mat
--On Tuesday, August 26, 2003 4:17 PM +0200 Daniel Frey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my current project, there are a lot of code fragments that read
like this:
result-insert(
12 matches
Mail list logo
