Dear Boosters,
All of our codes are now built on top of boost. Since we might use Cray
vector computers more in the future (finally they provides a
standard-conforming C++ standard library in release 3.6) we started
porting our codes to the Cray. I did not run the full test suite, but
just tri
>From: "Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Terje Slettebø <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > However, I also understand the concern regarding understanding the
> policies
> > available, their re
"Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b0aro4$5gq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b0aro4$5gq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> I wonder if there have been any murmurs in the C++ standard
> committee about the system for setting default parameters somehow
> being changed to solve this problem, so
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b0bcbp$bd9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b0bcbp$bd9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> b0aro4$5gq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b0aro4$5gq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [...]
> > I wonder if there have been any murmurs i
> 1.) it seems that Cray C++ with the "-h conform" option, which enforces
> strict standard conformance does not compile this code in
> boost/filesystem/operations.hpp
>
> class directory_iterator
>: public boost::iterator< std::input_iterator_tag,
>path, std::ptrdiff_t, const p
On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 12:55 PM, John Maddock wrote:
1.) it seems that Cray C++ with the "-h conform" option, which
enforces
strict standard conformance does not compile this code in
boost/filesystem/operations.hpp
class directory_iterator
: public boost::iterator< std::input
> Hmmm while I can see your point, I still think a default constructor should
> be provided. And as I, along with all of the users in the messages you cited
> seemed to have expected that default constructed dates would be set to
> 'not_a_date_time', I'd suggest that this would be the most sensibl
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, the policy_ptr<> code in the sandbox features a policy adaptor
> that automagically detects specified policies, and fills in defaults, in any
> order. However, it requires that the user specify policies using MPL
> Lambda syntax. And that s
"Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> -Sure, and I expected we'd do that. Not to beat this horse to death,
> -but I think even that doesn't insulate users from the parameters
> -completely. They'll see it in the documentation, and
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> In Boost.Python I'm using a system for interfaces such as this one
> where optional template parameters can be passed in any order. I'm
> using the properties of the type to detect their meaning.
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 wished I had an appropriat
From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I think Peter also values the fact that boost::shared_ptr has few
> dependencies on other boost code, a problem I don't see such an easy
> way out of.
That's definitely important since so much other Boost code depends on it.
But let's assume for the
"Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> In Boost.Python I'm using a system for interfaces such as this one
>> where optional template parameters can be passed in any order. I'm
>> usin
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:11:39 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As I think you all know, if you have something like
>>
>> enum e { e1 = 1u << 31 };
>>
>> then it simply "promotes" e1 to int instead of unsigned int. For
>> instance thi
Edward Diener wrote:
[...]
> the system for setting default parameters somehow being changed to solve
> this problem, so that a user can override a default without having to
> override all
> default parameters but that doesn't seem to solve the problem in my mind.
> Something clearer and cleaner
>From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Terje Slettebø" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > I understand the concern. For one thing, we don't have template
typedefs,
> > yet, although me may get a similar effect (if not the same type) with
> e.g.:
> >
> > template
> > struct shared_ptr : smart_p
Ronald Garcia wrote:
> Here's the version blurb:
>
> Edison Design Group C/C++ Front End, version 2.43.1 (Jan 16
> 2001 11:20:19)
> Copyright 1988-1999 Edison Design Group, Inc.
>
> KAI C++ 4.0d (KCC) -- Jan 16 2001 -- (C) Copyright 1994-2000 Kuck &
> Associates,
> Inc.
Thanks!
>
> AFAIK It s
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:24:13 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aleksey and I were just discussing this one. As soon as he's done
>implementing the "for_" algorithm it could look like this:
>
>template // N must be an *octal* constant
>struct binary
>: for_ >, // "forward" sta
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> In Boost.Python I'm using a system
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
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:11:39 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> As I think you all know, if you have something like
>>>
>>> enum e { e1 = 1u << 31 };
>>>
>>> then it simply "promotes"
Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One aspect of the semantic complexity that bothers me
> is that the various flavors of smart pointer may not
> be interchangeable. shared_ptr is partly parameterized
> on implementation, but the interface and semantics
> remain the same. For a policy-bas
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not that I think the application to "binary literals" is particularly
> important, but an elegant implementation would be possible if string
> literals and [] operator were allowed in constant expressions; this
> way one could easily "extract" characters
"Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Edward Diener wrote:
> [...]
> > the system for setting default parameters somehow being changed to solve
> > this problem, so that a user can override a default without having to
> > override
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> In Boost.Python I'm using a system for interfaces such as this one
> where optional template parameters can be passed in any order.
> I'm using the properties of the type to detect their mea
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:13:45 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Unfortunately
>> the committee seems on the road of prohibiting this and other similar
>> (and potentially more useful) uses of string literals in constant
>> expressions:
>>
I'll try to do it at least once to see which parts of boost we can use,
and see how much CPU time this gobbles up. If it is not too much, I
will talk to our sysadmins if they would allow me to do it about once a
month. I don't think that testing more often would be possible, since
already compilin
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:06:06 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Right. But does it print anything in this case?
>
> if (e1 < 0)
> std::cout << "whoops\n";
>
>Then I'd be worried.
Then you are worried ;-)
Genny.
___
Unsubs
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> In Boost.Python I'm using a system for interfaces such as this one
>> where optional template parameters can be passed in any order.
>> I'm
>From: "Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 07:33 AM 1/18/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
> >
> >It is not simply declaration complexity that Dave's talking about - it
can
> >be avoided by making smart_ptr be shared_ptr by using default
> >parameters. It is semantic complexity. shared_ptr is fairly dee
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:13:45 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Unfortunately
>>> the committee seems on the road of prohibiting this and other similar
>>> (and potentially more useful) us
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> Ronald Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is there a way to get this to work without previously running the entire
> > boost test suite? I just want to test one library.
>
> For testing one library, forget about report generation.
>
> Just go t
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> Could you test if the following compiles successfully with the latest CVS
> sources?
> [...]
The code you posted compiles under KCC both with and without the --strict
command-line parameter. Hope this helps, and thank you.
Cheers,
ron
__
On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 07:36 PM, Daniel Yerushalmi wrote:
I'll try to do it at least once to see which parts of boost we can use,
and see how much CPU time this gobbles up. If it is not too much, I
will talk to our sysadmins if they would allow me to do it about once a
month. I don't
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:14:37 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:13:45 -0500, David Abrahams
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Unfortunately
the committee seems
Matthias Troyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 07:36 PM, Daniel Yerushalmi wrote:
>
>>
>> I'll try to do it at least once to see which parts of boost we can use,
>> and see how much CPU time this gobbles up. If it is not too much, I
>> will talk to our sysadmins i
Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the Win32 random_test regression test, gcc is chewing up 1.2 gigs
> of virtual memory, then dying. See below.
>
> I'd appreciate it if one of the gcc experts who reads this list
> would report the problem to the gcc folks in the appropriate form.
I'd s
Ronald Garcia wrote:
> The code you posted compiles under KCC both with and without
> the --strict command-line parameter.
Good, check out the latest CVS sources, then - the issue should be fixed
now.
> Hope this helps, and thank you.
You are welcome!
Aleksey
On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 10:33 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
ii) the fast vector units do not help anything for compiling the code.
Just one question: why the heck don't they make a cross-compiler which
runs on a machine better-suited to compilation?
They have that, but it costs extra m
-snip-
> I thought the C++ template solution by Damian Conway was pretty neat,
-snip-
I thought so too at first, but at a closer look you can see that the code in
practice only works for integers.. It solves the problem in the original
thread, but shouldn't be mistaken for a generic solution.
__
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Huh? They're already prohibited.
>>>
>>> I meant that they (you ;-)) want to prohibit any use of string
>>> literals in constant expressions.
>>
>>Nobody "wants to".
>
> Ah ok. Everybody has always been wanting to ;-)
Desires and intentions are som
At 11:30 AM 1/18/2003, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:13:45 -0500, David Abrahams
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Unfortunately
>>> the committee seems on the road of prohibiting this and other similar
>>> (and potentially more useful) use
"Fredrik Blomqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b0cvd7$4dv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b0cvd7$4dv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> -snip-
> > I thought the C++ template solution by Damian Conway was pretty neat,
> -snip-
> I thought so too at first, but at a closer look you can see that the code
in
> pr
43 matches
Mail list logo
