David Abrahams wrote:
I don't understand it, but Ron Garcia seems to have a fondness for
checking duplicates of information that is hosted elsewhere into his
library's tree.
Since you and I previously discussed why multi_array has a private
copy of iterator_adaptors, I'm assuming a :-) goes
Ronald Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
I don't understand it, but Ron Garcia seems to have a fondness for
checking duplicates of information that is hosted elsewhere into his
library's tree.
Since you and I previously discussed why multi_array has a private
copy of
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the main CVS? iterator-categories.html is still dated several days
ago. Or am I looking in the wrong place?
I guess so. Why would I be editing a document in
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the main CVS? iterator-categories.html is still dated several days
ago. Or am I looking in the wrong place?
I guess
At 09:25 AM 7/13/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the main CVS? iterator-categories.html is still dated several
days
ago. Or am
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ouch! HTML is the Boost standard. I work offline (with no
connection available) a great deal, and want the docs in the CVS
working directory.
But these are not really boost documentation; they're committee
papers that have been developed at Boost.
Have
At 01:42 PM 7/13/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ouch! HTML is the Boost standard. I work offline (with no
connection available) a great deal, and want the docs in the CVS
working directory.
But these are not really boost documentation; they're committee
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The old input iterator 24.1.1 had a requirement:
*r++ returned type T, semantics {T tmp= *r; ++r; return tmp; }
The new Single Pass Iterators in N1477 have no such requirement.
That's because the requirement mixes access and traversal.
That's
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's fine with me - that requirement was a source of bugs in my
code and violated the rule of least astonishment as far as I was
concerned.
But before I remove the test from the filesystem library that verifies
the old input iterator semantics for
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 04:17 PM 7/12/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
A single-pass iterator is required to support r++ (inherited from the
incrementable iterator requirements), but I guess that we've
unintentionally dropped the requiremnt for *r++ of readable
At 07:19 PM 7/12/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 04:17 PM 7/12/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
A single-pass iterator is required to support r++ (inherited from
the
incrementable iterator requirements), but I guess that we've
unintentionally dropped
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the main CVS? iterator-categories.html is still dated several days
ago. Or am I looking in the wrong place?
I guess so. Why would I be editing a document in the multi_array lib?
I was talking about
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the main CVS? iterator-categories.html is still dated several days
ago. Or am I looking in the wrong place?
I guess so. Why would I be editing a document in the multi_array lib?
I was talking about
13 matches
Mail list logo
