Re: [boost] Re: lexical_cast fixes

2003-03-16 Thread Thomas Witt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kevlin, Kevlin Henney wrote: | In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Witt | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes | | (1) I would not consider that to be something to document as the | implementation should be free to choose a suitable approach, Agreed, when I w

[boost] Re: lexical_cast fixes

2003-03-14 Thread Gennaro Prota
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:30:53 +, Kevlin Henney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thomas Witt<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >>The change in floating point precision handling might be >>surprising to some users. Especially to those who use lexical_cast for >>output formatting. > >I will provide a changes

[boost] Re: lexical_cast fixes

2003-03-14 Thread Kevlin Henney
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >As said before I am not trying to block the lexical_cast update for >1_30_0. That's beyond my power anyway. I'll try to rephrase my criticism >to be a bit more constructive. Thanks, much appreciated. I can't do a lot with

Re: [boost] Re: lexical_cast fixes

2003-03-14 Thread Thomas Witt
Kevlin, Kevlin Henney wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Abrahams Without a documentation update?!? The documentation is the same as it was yesterday. The change was in the implementation and not the interface, which is what is documented. As said before I am not trying to block the le

[boost] Re: lexical_cast fixes

2003-03-13 Thread Kevlin Henney
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> So now we'll wait until some of the other platform tests get >> updated. If their results looks as good then the update can stay in >> 1.30.0. > >Without a documentation update?!?