Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 11:08 AM 3/7/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>
> >"Sam Partington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Hate to sound pushy, but I've no answer on this, were the patches ok?
> >Would
> >> you like me to repost them?
> >>
> >> Or s
At 11:08 AM 3/7/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>"Sam Partington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Hate to sound pushy, but I've no answer on this, were the patches ok?
>Would
>> you like me to repost them?
>>
>> Or should I just drop it?
>
>The code looks OK, but the submission won't be
"Sam Partington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Hate to sound pushy, but I've no answer on this, were the patches ok? Would
> you like me to repost them?
>
> Or should I just drop it?
The code looks OK, but the submission won't be complete without
patches for the docs and tests.
--
Sam Partington wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Hate to sound pushy, but I've no answer on this, were the patches ok? Would
> you like me to repost them?
>
> Or should I just drop it?
No, please don't drop it. I think it's a good idea, but I haven't found
the time to look at your patches closely. I will
OTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] possible addition to operators library
> Daniel Frey wrote:
> >>
> >> Daniel Frey wrote:
> > No problem. IIRC it was Peter Dimov who came up with the safe-bool
> > idiom first. At least I s
Daniel Frey wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Frey wrote:
> No problem. IIRC it was Peter Dimov who came up with the safe-bool
> idiom first. At least I saw it first from him. Another way which
> works but results in worse error messages is this:
>
> template
> struct bool_testable : B
> {
> private:
> operat
Sam Partington wrote:
>
> Daniel Frey wrote:
> > I also think it would be fair to mention Dave as a contributor, too,
> > as he provided the way to reduce the overhead.
>
> Of course, that bit was still there from the first time through, also
> whoever came up with the original "unspecified-bool-
Hi all,
Sorry I've been off air for a bit. I'll try to answer as much as I can in
this email.
Daniel Frey wrote:
> I also think it would be fair to mention Dave as a contributor, too,
> as he provided the way to reduce the overhead.
Of course, that bit was still there from the first time through
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> namespace boost
> {
>struct safe_bool
>{
>int value;
>typedef int safe_bool::*type;
>};
> }
>
> struct myclass
> {
>operator boost::safe_bool::type() const
>{
> return expression ? &boost::safe_bool::value : 0;
Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > That won't work as you made it a nested struct so it is still different
>> > for all instantiations. I think Dave meant to go for this one:
>>
>> Yup, that's what I meant. BTW,
David Abrahams wrote:
>
> Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That won't work as you made it a nested struct so it is still different
> > for all instantiations. I think Dave meant to go for this one:
>
> Yup, that's what I meant. BTW, so this safe_bool thing can get
> further re-used
Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That won't work as you made it a nested struct so it is still different
> for all instantiations. I think Dave meant to go for this one:
Yup, that's what I meant. BTW, so this safe_bool thing can get
further re-used it might make sense to make a special
"Sam Partington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think I agree, we want to provide as little restrictions as possible.
>
> Also seems to me that anyone who declares a global template operator!
> deserves some problems!
I don't know why you think so.
> So, now with David's suggestion, I've attach
Sam Partington wrote:
>
> I think I agree, we want to provide as little restrictions as possible.
Dave's argument is a good one. I agree, too.
> So, now with David's suggestion, I've attached what I propose.
That won't work as you made it a nested struct so it is still different
for all instant
Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sam Partington wrote:
>>
>> I thought of this too, but this limits the user to using a member based
>> operator!. So I couldn't do this :
>>
>> class A : public boost::bool_testable
>> {
>> public:
>> int get();
>> };
>>
>> bool operator!(const A&
I think I agree, we want to provide as little restrictions as possible.
Also seems to me that anyone who declares a global template operator!
deserves some problems!
So, now with David's suggestion, I've attached what I propose.
I've tested to a small extent on MSVC6 and gcc 2.95, which are all
Sam Partington wrote:
>
> I thought of this too, but this limits the user to using a member based
> operator!. So I couldn't do this :
>
> class A : public boost::bool_testable
> {
> public:
> int get();
> };
>
> bool operator!(const A& a)
> {
> return a.get() == 0;
> }
>
> Of course I
"Sam Partington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought of this too, but this limits the user to using a member based
> operator!. So I couldn't do this :
>
> class A : public boost::bool_testable
> {
> public:
> int get();
> };
>
> bool operator!(const A& a)
> {
> return a.get() == 0;
>
Daniel Frey wrote:
> Nice idea! I already had something similar in mind, but you managed to
> make it really generic.
Not really, all I've done is to borrow the code from shared_ptr, and to put
into a shape like one of the existing unary operator helpers in
operator.hpp. Thanks anyway though :-)
Daniel Frey wrote:
>
> The only problem I see is that an instance of safe_bool_conversion is
> created which is not really needed. I suggest to rely on the operator!
> provided by T:
>
> template< class T, class B = ::boost::detail::empty_base >
> struct bool_testable : B
> {
> private:
>type
> Essentially you supply a operator! and it supplies an unspecified-bool-type
> conversion operator.
Nice idea! I already had something similar in mind, but you managed to
make it really generic.
> //Key
> //T: primary operand type
> //t: values of type T
>
> // TemplateSupplied Operatio
"Sam Partington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> While making myself an interim shared_resource class, I found myself reusing
> the shared_ptr safe-bool conversion, and thought that really the idiom ought
> to go into the operators library.
>
> I am unsure about the name, but for now bool_te
Hi,
While making myself an interim shared_resource class, I found myself reusing
the shared_ptr safe-bool conversion, and thought that really the idiom ought
to go into the operators library.
I am unsure about the name, but for now bool_testable seems to match the
naming style used by the rest of
23 matches
Mail list logo
