Gennaro Prota:
Vesa, I really appreciate your attempt but your code assumes the
required number to be a power of two (it just tries 32, 64, 128,
etc.). What about 48 bits unsigned long?[...]
If unsigned long has 48 bits, then an n of 32 would be chosen.
There are good reason to choose an n
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Abrahams wrote:
It appears to be just bad luck that higher order functional
programming with function templates is impossible in C++.
My current understanding (which, admittedly, is not backed up by a
real-world experience) is that if you
The recent change to boost/cstdint.hpp for Cray systems is not
appropriate for the Cray X1. It has a 16-bit short type, however there
are performance penalties associated with it.
OK thanks, patches applied.
The following patch for cstdint.hpp sets up the appropriate typedefs for
this
Sorry for this slightly off topic question, but I'm not a Linux user by
trade. I've recently switched distributions to Mandrake 9.0, which comes
with GCC 3.2 out of the box. When trying to compile Boost.Threads on this
platform I encounter the following problem:
Good question, every linux
I have now run the regression tests on a Cray SV1 but it seems there is
still a problem in the postprocessing stage. I get output like:
I would expect to see that if you haven't filtered the bjam output through
process_jam_log, double check your bin/ directory to see what output files
have been
Please send me your amended code. I had thought that the Kenniston stuff was
included in the zip uploaded, but I will check. Apologies if not.
Thanks
Paul
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joerg Walter
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003
Don't know about other *BSD-s but GCC on OpenBSD GCC defines
_POSIX_THREADS=1 when the -pthread is used. Here are the details...
OK thanks, then I've disabled threading support in bsd.hpp when
_POSIX_THREADS is not defined, let me know if this fixes things.
Thanks,
John Maddock
One is conversion to a pointer type: in this case you can have
a source expression of any integer type, but it must be constant
and have the value zero. Example:
int * p = '\0';
enum { e = 5 };
int (*pf)() = 4 % ( e - '\001');
If you use the indeterminate
I think that is_convertible should be based as closely
as possible on the definition in clause 4 of the
standard. As has been pointed out, a problem with this
is that the standard refers to a source expression, not
a source type. I think this means that the definition
of is_converible
Ihsan Ali Al Darhi [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:01d001c2c2ba$6af14ea0$73c721d4@h8p7o2...
Can I use this library to implement multiple undo/redo in GUI applications
under Windows? For example in a word processor.
Yes you can. Even if the other suggested improvements of the
trade. I've recently switched distributions to Mandrake 9.0, which
comes
with GCC 3.2 out of the box. When trying to compile Boost.Threads on
this
platform I encounter the following problem:
What do you define as an out of the box install? MDK has many options. and
you need to select the
Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
std::string text(text);
mpl::for_each my_types (boost::bindvoid(my_function, text, _1));
I got error: no instance of function template boost::mpl::for_each
matches the argument list, when trying this
From: John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't know about other *BSD-s but GCC on OpenBSD GCC defines
_POSIX_THREADS=1 when the -pthread is used. Here are the details...
OK thanks, then I've disabled threading support in bsd.hpp when
_POSIX_THREADS is not defined, let me know if this fixes
---BeginMessage---
Sergey P. Derevyago [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the following code well-formed?
---8---
#include stdio.h
struct B {};
struct D : private B {};
struct No {};
struct Yes { No no[2]; };
Yes
From: John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm beginning to think that the only way to deal with this is to add array
types to the list of types banned from the To parameter. Otherwise we
get
into the old context sensitive answer problem.
I think that no special ban list is necessary. Given the
Hi Volodya,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Vladimir Prus wrote:
ghost Looking at BGL's MutablePropertyGraph docs I can't understand
ghost two things:
ghost
ghost ep is an object of type G::edge_property_type
ghost
ghost Is that really so? Why not graph_traitsG::edge_property_type?
Actually, I think
There is a description of this in the math constants updated docs
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/MathConstants/Math_Constants_doc_3.zip
and within the code zip
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/MathConstants/Math_constants3.zip
there are function_constants.hpp and a
Hi Volodya,
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Vladimir Prus wrote:
ghost
ghost I think that BGL concept docs are a little bit out of sync with
ghost the concept cheking code. I've corrected some of problems and
ghost attach a patch. Is it OK to apply it?
Yes, those corrections look fine.
ghost Another issue
Hi Duncan,
Sorry for the lagged reply.
I think the problem is in the value used for zero in
file_dependencies.cpp. Since we are using for comparison, I think
zero should be std::numeric_limitsint::max() instead of 0.
Cheers,
Jeremy
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002, Duncan Clarke wrote:
duncan I
That's right. The name changed. Sorry!
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Douglas Gregor wrote:
gregod On Saturday 04 January 2003 11:53 am, Vladimir Prus wrote:
gregod I was just going to use the class named in the subject. Unfortunately,
gregod it can't be found anywhere. Here what grep on an up-to-date
Hi Volodya,
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Vladimir Prus wrote:
ghost
ghost I've come across more problems with documentation.
ghost
ghost 1. The docs for topological_sort say that if (u,v) edge is present,
ghost then u comes before v in the topological order. I was assuming
ghost that if I store
John Maddock said:
Sorry for this slightly off topic question, but I'm not a Linux user
by trade. I've recently switched distributions to Mandrake 9.0, which
comes with GCC 3.2 out of the box. When trying to compile
Boost.Threads on this platform I encounter the following problem:
Good
Hugo Duncan wrote:
Including for_each.hpp on bcc561 gives
Error E2230
c:\usr\boost\boost/mpl/aux_/preprocessed/bcc/template_arity.hp
p 20: In-line data member initialization requires an integral
constant expression
Any chance of finding a fix for this? I am having problems
working
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Hi,
Hi Joel,
Question why is mpl::void_t an incomplete type?
I suppose we are talking about 'mpl::void_'. Since we have a use case for it
now, just go ahead and make it complete! (A short comment would be nice, too
:).
Aleksey
The deadline for submissions of full proposals for C++ Standard Library
Technical Report is the committee meeting April 7-11 in Oxford, UK.
A full proposal must include proposed wording for the actual standardese
to go in the TR, as well as the usual supporting material. (Note that the
I've finally updated my Cygwin installation, so I was able to run bjam with
gcc and experiment with the optional's Jamfile.
The just committed Optional's test suite now includes failure cases.
--
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Here's the Phoenix version:
struct my_function_
{
template typename Arg1T, typename Arg2T
struct result { typedef void type; };
template typename U
void operator()(std::string const text, U)
{
// ...
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:17:00 -0600, Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have access to 5.6.1, so I would need some cooperation to fix it.
5.6.1 is 5.6 with patch 2 applied. I *think* this is the same as kylix compiler,
though I haven't run the latter.
Off the top of my head, can
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joel de Guzman wrote:
mpl::for_each my_types (my_function(text, _1));
This is way too cool! Now we only need to provide such free-standing forms
of all STL algorithms/member functions, and we will be living in a
different
world:
What would be an equivalent of the following #fief, if I want to re-writte
it using our new BOOST_WORKAROUND macro?
// last checked with 0x561
#if defined(__BORLANDC__) __BORLANDC__ = 0x561
!defined(BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG)
Here, 0x561 is the first version requiring the workaround and at the same
At 07:04 AM 1/24/2003, John Maddock wrote:
I have now run the regression tests on a Cray SV1 but it seems there is
still a problem in the postprocessing stage. I get output like:
I would expect to see that if you haven't filtered the bjam output
through
process_jam_log, double check your bin/
Hugo Duncan wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:17:00 -0600, Aleksey Gurtovoy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have access to 5.6.1, so I would need some cooperation to
fix it.
5.6.1 is 5.6 with patch 2 applied.
Yeah, only the patch cannot be applied to an evaluation version of the
Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What would be an equivalent of the following #fief, if I want to re-writte
it using our new BOOST_WORKAROUND macro?
// last checked with 0x561
#if defined(__BORLANDC__) __BORLANDC__ = 0x561
!defined(BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG)
Here, 0x561 is the first
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:44:58 -0600, Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good, thank you. Fixed in the CVS now - please check if it works and report
back.
Aleksey,
Thanks! Works.
Hugo
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
Ihsan Ali Al Darhi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
01d001c2c2ba$6af14ea0$73c721d4@h8p7o2">news:01d001c2c2ba$6af14ea0$73c721d4@h8p7o2...
Can I use this library to implement multiple undo/redo in GUI applications
under Windows? For example in a word processor.
Undo/redo is generic mechanism
Douglas Gregor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
-- Footer should have a revised date. I like the horizon rule,
too.
A generated date would be easy; a revised date isn't so easy, because
it's
not trivial to figure out when something used in
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, James Curran wrote:
Douglas Gregor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
-- Footer should have a revised date. I like the horizon rule,
too.
A generated date would be easy; a revised date isn't so easy, because
it's
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:35:27 -, John Maddock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One is conversion to a pointer type: [..]
The other case is the deprecated conversion const char [N] - char*
which is valid only if the source expression is a string literal.
OK, both of those are special
Hello!
Any chance of an additon of David Moores thread pool implementation to
boost.threads to the next release or another implementation of some kind of
thread pool concept. Also some kind of alarm or timer would be useful. Or
how does the priority and wishlish for boost.threads look like. I
Gennaro Prota:
Vesa Karvonen:
Gennaro Prota:
Vesa, I really appreciate your attempt but your code assumes the
required number to be a power of two (it just tries 32, 64, 128,
etc.). What about 48 bits unsigned long?[...]
If unsigned long has 48 bits, then an n of 32 would be chosen.
And
I think I have found a problem with boost/mpl/list.hpp
I am including files using BOOST_PP_ITERATE. One of the files
that I include happens itself to include boost/mpl/list.hpp.
boost/mpl/list.hpp begins
#if !defined(BOOST_PP_IS_ITERATING)
/ header body
#ifndef
Michel André said:
Hello!
Any chance of an additon of David Moores thread pool implementation to
boost.threads to the next release or another implementation of some kind
of thread pool concept.
Depends on the time frame of the next release and how fast I can finish my
work on the library.
- Original Message -
From: Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's a similar problem to what happens
if the To type has a private constructor taking the From type, my gut
feeling is that both these cases have to be listed as undefined
behaviour.
Ouch, no. You will never find me agreeing
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:23:53 +0200, Vesa Karvonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gennaro Prota:
Vesa Karvonen:
Gennaro Prota:
Vesa, I really appreciate your attempt but your code assumes the
required number to be a power of two (it just tries 32, 64, 128,
etc.). What about 48 bits unsigned long?[...]
Just out of curiosity, which boost libraries are likely to be proposed to
the committee?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:43:28 -0500, Beman Dawes wrote:
The deadline for submissions of full proposals for C++ Standard Library
Technical Report is the committee meeting April 7-11 in Oxford, UK.
From: Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've run the Win32 tests again, so you can see the new results.
One thing that I notice is that tests that are no longer in the Jamfile are
kept in the table; for example, enable_shared_from_this_test.cpp is still
there, even though I've renamed it (the name
--- Paul Mensonides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I don't think that he means undefined behavior as far as the compiler is
concerned, but I haven't been following this thread closely so I might be
wrong.)
[..]You can also try to
handle border case situations like this one if at all possible,
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think I have found a problem with boost/mpl/list.hpp
I am including files using BOOST_PP_ITERATE. One of the files
that I include happens itself to include boost/mpl/list.hpp.
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:43:28 -0500, Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A full proposal must include proposed wording for the actual standardese
to go in the TR, as well as the usual supporting material. (Note that the
committee may not act on the proposal right away, or may request revisions
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:53:00 -0800, Paul Mensonides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am including files using BOOST_PP_ITERATE. One of the files
that I include happens itself to include boost/mpl/list.hpp.
I'm not sure what
Hugo Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I have found a problem with boost/mpl/list.hpp
I am including files using BOOST_PP_ITERATE. One of the files
that I include happens itself to include boost/mpl/list.hpp.
Normally you shouldn't be making general #includes inside a vertical
Is there such a thing as is_abstract_baseT similar to is_polymorphicT ?
Is such a thing possible? I could use it but have been unable to figrure
out how to do it.
Robert Ramey
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:01:21 -0500, David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hugo Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I have found a problem with boost/mpl/list.hpp
I am including files using BOOST_PP_ITERATE. One of the files
that I include happens itself to include
Hugo Duncan wrote:
I think I have found a problem with boost/mpl/list.hpp
I am including files using BOOST_PP_ITERATE. One of the files
that I include happens itself to include boost/mpl/list.hpp.
boost/mpl/list.hpp begins
#if !defined(BOOST_PP_IS_ITERATING)
/ header body
Hugo Duncan wrote:
Maybe my use of ITERATE is slightly different, in that I am using
it to include a LIST of files. The LIST provides a single
integration point. Hoisting all the includes reduces the utility
of using ITERATE.
OK, I see the problem now.
I can hoist the include of
Usage may be clearer with some code leaving out pp includes.
The file models/Furnace.h includes boost/mpl/list.hpp
IncludeAllModels.h
#define SUBCLASS_LIST \
BOOST_PP_TUPLE_TO_LIST( \
3, \
( \
Slitter, \
Scalper, \
Furnace \
) \
) \
Paul Mensonides [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do, however, agree that we need more support from the language for
generic programming and some type of standardized API into the
compiler's type system. And I definitely think that undefined
behavior is unreasonable when the situation is easily
Robert Ramey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Is there such a thing as is_abstract_baseT similar to is_polymorphicT
?
Is such a thing possible? I could use it but have been unable to figrure
out how to do it.
I assume that you expect
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Mensonides [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do, however, agree that we need more support from the language for
generic programming and some type of standardized API into the
compiler's type system. And I definitely think that undefined
behavior is
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Mensonides [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do, however, agree that we need more support from the language for
generic programming and some type of standardized API into the
compiler's type system. And I
Joe Gottman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Ramey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Is there such a thing as is_abstract_baseT similar to is_polymorphicT
?
Is such a thing possible? I could use it but have been unable to figrure
out how to do
Depends on the time frame of the next release and how fast I can finish my
work on the library. If it's not in 1.30.0, it will be in 1.31.0. In the
mean time, if it's important enough to you, you can track the work in
progress in the thread_dev branch in CVS.
Thanks! Will check out.
Also some
Michel André said:
Depends on the time frame of the next release and how fast I can finish
my work on the library. If it's not in 1.30.0, it will be in 1.31.0.
In the mean time, if it's important enough to you, you can track the
work in progress in the thread_dev branch in CVS.
Thanks! Will
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe my use of ITERATE is slightly different, in that I am using
it to include a LIST of files. The LIST provides a single
integration point. Hoisting all the includes reduces the utility
of using ITERATE.
Ah, okay, I see
- Original Message -
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hugo Duncan wrote:
Maybe my use of ITERATE is slightly different, in that I am using
it to include a LIST of files. The LIST provides a single
integration point. Hoisting all the includes reduces the utility
of
- Original Message -
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I tend to agree on a moral/aesthetic level, but on a practical level
we have to tread carefully. The question, can we just have an
operator which produces a compile-time constant value saying whether
its operand is a valid
Paul Mensonides [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Original Message -
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I tend to agree on a moral/aesthetic level, but on a practical level
we have to tread carefully. The question, can we just have an
operator which produces a compile-time constant
- Original Message -
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Here's the Phoenix version:
struct my_function_
{
template typename Arg1T, typename Arg2T
struct result { typedef void type; };
template typename U
On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 08:32 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
Actually, not that it matters, but I think I'm misquoting the original
request, which was, IIRC, tell us whether evaluating this expression
should produce a compilation error. Howard knows for sure...
Yes, that was my proposal,
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Original Message -
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Here's the Phoenix version:
struct my_function_
{
template typename Arg1T, typename Arg2T
struct result { typedef void
Howard Hinnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fortunately circumstances such as the one illustrated
above seem to be rare (at least in my experience). But
it is amusing (amazing?) how many traits like tests are
today passing non-POD classes to an ellipsis, and
invoking undefined behavior! :-)
I
- Original Message -
From: Howard Hinnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fortunately circumstances such as the one illustrated above seem to be
rare (at least in my experience). But it is amusing (amazing?) how
many traits like tests are today passing non-POD classes to an
ellipsis, and invoking
- Original Message -
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problems are not insurmountable though (with an
is_valid_expression).
You aren't dealing with entire language at this point, only an
expression.
And which parts of the language does that fail to drag in? Not many.
- Original Message -
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is way too cool! Now we only need to provide such free-standing forms
of all STL algorithms/member functions, and we will be living in a different
world:
std::vectorstd::string v;
push_back(v, text);
- Original Message -
From: Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A good start is libs/phoenix/test/functors_tests.cpp
and libs/phoenix/example/fundamental/sample3.cpp
There are jamfiles in there FWIW.
BTW, here's the lambda-lambda solution posed by Joel Young:
#include iostream
Robert Ramey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Is there such a thing as is_abstract_baseT similar to is_polymorphicT
?
Is such a thing possible? I could use it but have been unable to figrure
out how to do it.
Rani Sharoni wrote
On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 09:37 PM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
Fortunately circumstances such as the one illustrated above seem to be
rare (at least in my experience). But it is amusing (amazing?) how
many traits like tests are today passing non-POD classes to an
ellipsis, and invoking
On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 09:36 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
Howard Hinnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fortunately circumstances such as the one illustrated
above seem to be rare (at least in my experience). But
it is amusing (amazing?) how many traits like tests are
today passing non-POD
On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 09:12 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote:
struct A
{
private:
A(const A);
};
struct B
: A
{
};
char test[is_convertibleB, A::value];
On Metrowerks this gives:
Error : illegal access from 'A' to protected/private member
'A::A(const A )'
(instantiating:
Hugo Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:25:40 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
inline void do_my_function(string, void_) {}
template class Lst
inline void do_my_function(string s, Lst lst)
{
Pavel Vozenilek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b0svlm$l1q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b0svlm$l1q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Robert Ramey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Is there such a thing as is_abstract_baseT similar to
is_polymorphicT
?
Is
81 matches
Mail list logo
