In visual C 7
The result are:
c:\develop\FreeSearch\IndexBuilder\test.cpp(13) : error C2059: syntax error
: '<'
c:\develop\FreeSearch\IndexBuilder\test.cpp(14) : see reference to
class template instantiation 'Y' being compiled
c:\develop\FreeSearch\IndexBuilder\test.cpp(13) : error C2065: '
"Thomas Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> IIUC is_based_and_derived evaluates to true as well. Is a class T
> strictly speaking a base class of itself?
Yes; any type is considered a supertype of itself.
Andrei
I have applied to your workaround, initialising
constant< float, pi_tag > const pi = constant< float, pi_tag >();
and this compiles and runs OK with MSVC 7.0. And better still, it not longer
requires MSVC language extensions, nor produces warnings at level 4. So I think
we can be confident it
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:40:02 +0100, Gennaro Prota
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:25:52 +0200, "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>However, there is a difference. Whether p->f() invokes undefined behavior is
>>determined by the value of p (i.e., at runtime.) Whether pa
I've just teached Boost.Build V2 to run unit tests under valgrind --- an
utility for detecting various memory-related errors. I get this error on
some code which uses Boost.Test:
==14051== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==14051==at 0x4027211F: (within /usr/lib/libs
Following the recent is_convertible discussion, I've put the following
together:
Rationale:
~~
There has been some fairly intense discussion on boost mailing list about
the is_convertible template, one suggestion was that since only expressions
(and not types) are convertible to a type or not
> I've noticed that the philosophy of boost as it concerns long long is:
> if the type exists then use it. Since it is a non standard feature
> shouldn't it be used only if requested by the user (e.g. with a macro
> from the command line:
>
>-DBOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG
Maybe, but you could end up
> The problems is caused by calling "data()" on std::string, which does not
> zero-terminate the returned value, AFAICT. The following patch eliminates
> the warning:
I reported that one some time ago: there are quite a few occurrences of
data() where c_str() should be used :-(
John Maddock
http:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 03:06:35 -0800, "Andrei Alexandrescu"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Thomas Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> IIUC is_based_and_derived evaluates to true as well. Is a class T
>> strictly speaking a base class of itself?
>
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:03:54 -, "John Maddock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Following the recent is_convertible discussion, I've put the following
>together:
>
>Rationale:
>~~
>
>There has been some fairly intense discussion on boost mailing list about
>the is_convertible template, one sugg
> While rebuilding code that uses is_empty<>, I have run across a whole
> slew of new errors with the latest CVS image and bcc 5.5.1. They are
> as follows:
>
> [C++ Error] broken_compiler_spec.hpp(86): E2238 Multiple declaration
> for 'remove_const'
> [C++ Error] broken_compiler_spec.hpp(86): E22
> >"Thomas Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> IIUC is_based_and_derived evaluates to true as well. Is a class T
> >> strictly speaking a base class of itself?
> >
> >Yes
>
> That's a convention of is_base_and_derived though. To the standa
> is there, among the uses of is_convertible that you have listed, any
> usage where no expression could be used (so that you would need to see
> if the "type" is convertible)?
Yes - named template parameters form the main example of that, concept
checking another (although in that case you could
"Daniel Yerushalmi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b15dfk$h89$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b15dfk$h89$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In visual C 7
> The result are:
Thanks...
but I was unforgivable lazy and post an Ill-formed program (should have
tested first!)
Could you tyr again with this corrected ve
--- John Maddock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Incidentally, I've noticed that boost's implementation of
> > is_base_and_derived has the same access-checking problems as
> > is_convertible. That could be easily fixed, as said in the thread
> > about is convertible, by using function templates:
>
I wonder if anyone has code for implementing unformatted I/O? What I
have in mind is for the simple case where the application that reads
data knows the data types, so this is not as complicated as the
general marshalling situation.
___
Unsubscribe & oth
From: "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> template
> struct X
> {
> X ( X const& ) ;
> template X ( X const& ) ;
> } ;
As a general MSVC rule, put the template before the non-template.
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.o
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> The smart pointer proposal is unconvincing to me. This, of course, comes
at
> no surprise. There's some conjecture in the reference document at
> http://www.boost.org/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm such as "The support
for
> custom deallocato
From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Andrei suggested that I pose this question to several groups, as
> it is relevant to all of them. While the problem was originally
identified
> by Richard Crossley, Andrei sums it up pretty well right here:
>
> The problem is, auto_ptr's behavior rel
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>
> It should be noted that the constructor taking a custom deleter has many
> implementation efficiency consequences that are not mentioned in the
> Standards proposal nor in the shared_ptr doc. My feeling is that the
> documentation at
> http:
On Monday 27 January 2003 08:26 pm, David B. Held wrote:
> My understanding is that the template constructor:
>
> template
> <
> typename T1,
> template class OP1,
> class CP1,
> template class KP1,
> template class
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
007701c2c6d2$0ef89880$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:007701c2c6d2$0ef89880$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> From: "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
> > template
> > struct X
> > {
> > X ( X const& ) ;
> > template X ( X const& ) ;
> > } ;
>
> As a
I would like to request a formal review of my program options library,
which allows to work with options provided by user on the command line,
in config file and (possibly) in other sources.
The library was tested with gcc 2.95 and gcc 3.2. It also works with bcc
5.5.1, except for one example.
T
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The thing I like most about RL is that it never fails (is strongly
> exception safe).
Those are different. Do mean to say that it never throws (offers the
nothrow guarantee)?
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * ht
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:58:33 -, "John Maddock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> is there, among the uses of is_convertible that you have listed, any
>> usage where no expression could be used (so that you would need to see
>> if the "type" is convertible)?
>
>Yes - named template parameters form
> > I've noticed that the philosophy of boost as it concerns long long is:
> > if the type exists then use it. Since it is a non standard feature
> > shouldn't it be used only if requested by the user (e.g. with a macro
> > from the command line:
> >
> >-DBOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG
>
> Maybe, but
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's also a contradiction in there. The document nicely continues "One of
> the reasons shared_ptr has been so successful is that in the great majority
> of cases it supplies all the features that users need." However, only two
> paragraphs be
"John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >"Thomas Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> IIUC is_based_and_derived evaluates to true as well. Is a class T
>> >> strictly speaking a base class of itself?
>> >
>> >Yes
>>
>> That's a con
David A. Greene wrote:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
I have one policy that I forgot to mention: chain_lookup_policy. It's
work
is based on Chain of responcibilities Design pattern. In this case Every
parameter knows how to parse itelf out of input. And this
identification may
not be the name at all.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:58:22 -, "John Maddock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've noticed that the philosophy of boost as it concerns long long is:
>> if the type exists then use it. Since it is a non standard feature
>> shouldn't it be used only if requested by the user (e.g. with a macro
>>
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> [...]
> The first question, of course, is: do you really need SmartPtr<...> to
> support move semantics (in current C++)?
Why wouldn't you want that? At the
"John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
010a01c2c6c9$fa168060$fa2b87d9@1016031671">news:010a01c2c6c9$fa168060$fa2b87d9@1016031671...
> [...]
> Seems to be working OK for me - in fact that header shouldn't be
> included with that compiler - it's used only when
> BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The thing I like most about RL is that it never fails (is strongly
> > exception safe).
>
> Those are different. Do mean to say that it never
From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> > [...]
> > The first question, of course, is: do you really need SmartPtr<...> to
> > support move semantics (in
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
> >
> > It should be noted that the constructor taking a custom deleter has many
> > implementation eff
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> > [...]
> > The first question, of
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There's also a contradiction in there. The document nicely continues
"One of
> > the reasons shared_ptr has been so successful is that in the
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes, a class is it's own superclass/subclass, but IMO not it's own
> > base: so it is a bug in the implementation.
>
> I'd like to suggest changing th
"Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 03:06:35 -0800, "Andrei Alexandrescu"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Thomas Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> IIU
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
001901c2c6ea$e2576360$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:001901c2c6ea$e2576360$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> [...]
> You can use this argument for any feature. But you can't include all
> features.
Watch me try. Did you want that sink in any particular color? ;)
> >
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Yes, a class is it's own superclass/subclass, but IMO not it's own
> > base: so it is a bug in the implementation.
>
> I'd like to suggest changing the documentation to match the
> implementation
The tentative release schedule for 1.30.0 looks like:
January 31 - Finish commits of major new components.
February 14 - Branch for release.
By end of February - Final release.
Unless this is a problem for someone, we will go with this schedule.
--Beman
__
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b16e3r$u0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16e3r$u0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > It depends on what your design goals are. If you want to create the
> > One True Smart Pointer Design, then yes, auto_ptr<
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> > From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [...]
> > >
> > > It should be noted that the constru
"Douglas Gregor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> template
> <
> typename T1,
> template class OP1,
> class CP1,
> template class KP1,
> template class SP1
> >
> SmartPtr(SmartPtr const& rhs,
> typename SmartPtr::
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Yes, a class is it's own superclass/subclass, but IMO not it's own
> > > base: so it is a bug in the implementation.
> >
> > I'd like to sugge
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> b16e3r$u0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16e3r$u0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > It depends on what your design goals are. If you want to create th
At 09:37 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
>> From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [...]
>> >
>> > It should be noted that the constructor
At 10:08 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> 009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d0
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> At the cost of adding an extra name, maybe it would be nice to provide
> is_base_and_derived and is_super_and_subclass.
I'm using is_base_and_derived_strict in my own traits. I like that
"base" and "derived" reflect the parameters order, but I always mix up
"super"
Hi,
You right. It somehow slipped my attention before. Luckily, I was working
with library last weekend and already eliminated almost all used of C
strings. And it will automatically fix this issue.
Gennadiy.
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://list
>January 31 - Finish commits of major new components.
Could be shift this date for 2 days, So we coould use an extra weekend?
Gennadiy.
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
At 11:37 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> the current shared_ptr enemies, when in my opinion they perfectly
>> complement each other. But I've grown tired of asking.
>
>I guess I started feeling that way when I've been told that shared_ptr is
>everything everyone will ever need, so ther
From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 001901c2c6ea$e2576360$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:001901c2c6ea$e2576360$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> > [...]
> > You can use this argument for any feature. But you can't include all
> > features.
>
> Watch me try.
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> [...]
> By the way, the current typedef template proposal prohibits deduction;
> this makes it less attractive for creating subpointers.
Ouch! Is this due to
"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At 10:08 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >[...]
> >I think what Peter refers to is that C++ might change to make
> >move semantics easier to implement. That would render the effort
> >unnece
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
001b01c2c6f4$71f7a490$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:001b01c2c6f4$71f7a490$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > At the cost of adding an extra name, maybe it would be nice to provide
> > is_base_and_derived and is_super
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Yes, a class is it's own superclass/subclass, but IMO not it's own
>> > base: so it is a bug in the implementation.
>>
>> I'd like to sugges
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
004501c2c6f8$970c7400$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:004501c2c6f8$970c7400$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
> Nope, but I want my sink strongly exception safe; the pointer should
> be deleted when a policy constructor
The documentation on the site indicates I can use GXX or
GCC_ROOT_DIRECTORY to specify which g++ binary to run. However, these
settings are ignored, and the g++ in my path is used instead.
GCC_ROOT_DIRECTORY=/usr/local/gcc-cvs/ TOOLS=gcc ~/bin/bjam
and other variants show this behaviour.
regar
The generated script contains the lines :
# add the -AA conformance option to CXXFLAGS for HP aCC only
if test $CXX = 'aCC'
CXXFLAGS="-AA $CXXFLAGS"
fi
This fails under "sh configure". Changing to :
if test $CXX = 'aCC'; then
CXXFLAGS="-AA $CXXFLAGS"
fi
fixes it
regards
john
--
"What
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I don't know about others, but when I read that three other pointers have
> been removed from the proposal to make it palatable and that there's word
> about a fourth, I start to doubt that
At 11:42 AM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>...
>> Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated.
>
>Disavowing your child? ;)
With extreme prejudice.
> Not everyone agrees with you. After all,
>we still have scoped_ptr<> and a mo
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 004501c2c6f8$970c7400$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:004501c2c6f8$970c7400$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
>> From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [...]
>> Nope, but I want my sink strongly exception safe; the p
Lock mechanism was added to shifted_ptr<>:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/shifted_ptr.zip
Benchmarks are also updated. Still shifted_ptr<> is using less memory and
twice faster for reconstruction time.
Notes:
- The first memory map report is not precise (shifted_ptr).
- The reports we
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
>> [...]
>> By the way, the current typedef template proposal prohibits deduction;
>> this makes it less attract
Hi,
Is there neat way with MPL to implement conditional expessions without
introducing aditional structures. For example:
template
void
foo( Container& c )
{
// pseudo code
[if ( c is reservable , i.e. has method reserve )
c.reserve( 100 );
]
...
}
Gennadiy.
At 01:02 PM 1/28/2003, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
>>January 31 - Finish commits of major new components.
>Could be shift this date for 2 days, So we coould use an extra weekend?
Yes, if you need it. Will anything you commit break compatibility with
existing code?
The point of "Finish commits
At 01:35 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
>> [...]
>> By the way, the current typedef template proposal prohibits deduction;
>> this makes it less attractive
"Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b16m42$7pv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16m42$7pv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Lock mechanism was added to shifted_ptr<>:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/shifted_ptr.zip
>
> Benchmarks are also updated. Still shifted_ptr<> is using les
"Rozental, Gennadiy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Is there neat way with MPL to implement conditional expessions without
> introducing aditional structures. For example:
>
> template
> void
> foo( Container& c )
> {
> // pseudo code
>[if ( c is reservable , i.e. has method reserve )
I've developed a new implementation that doesn't use remove_reference.
It works with GCC 3.2, but I need help with Visual C++ 6; I get an
internal compiler error. Also, I'm finding people to test it with other
compilers.
Index: boost/boost/any.hpp
===
> Yes, if you need it. Will anything you commit break
> compatibility with existing code?
No. It's just fix for Boost.Test unit-test to make it compartible with
regression testing and one new feature. I asked to make sure.
Gennadiy.
___
Unsubscribe & o
"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> Anyone interested might want to read the actual proposal. See
> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.pdf
Yes, I found that on my own, and noticed that of the two "mutually
"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> For a shared-ownership smart pointer with weak_ptr support, I expect
> some people will say that mandates a refcounted rather than reflinked
> implementation. I don't think that is true, but i
"Rani Sharoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b16dqm$sh9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16dqm$sh9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Yes, a class is it's
Now, we have one question of copylight.
I see that the original copyright must be left in the tranlated document.
Then, we will add the translater's copyright on the translated document
to the tail of each document.
The format will be, for example,
---
Japanese Translation Copyright 2003 Kohsk
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:33:38 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Shouldn't we stick the -b- option in our borland toolset, since it
>>increases conformance?
>
> Personally I would prefer that, yes (not for BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT
> thoug
At 05:25 PM 1/28/2003, k.t. wrote:
>
>Now, we have one question of copylight.
>
>I see that the original copyright must be left in the tranlated document.
>
>Then, we will add the translater's copyright on the translated document
>to the tail of each document.
>The format will be, for example,
>
>
At 01:42 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated.
>
>Disavowing your child? ;)
Historical note: auto_ptr<> was one of the few (maybe only) tim
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 01:42 PM, David B. Held wrote:
Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated.
Disavowing your child? ;) Not everyone agrees with you. After all,
we still have scoped_ptr<> and a move proposal. auto_ptr was just
too far ahead of its time. ;)
Imh
At 03:19 PM 1/28/2003, you wrote:
>> Yes, if you need it. Will anything you commit break
>> compatibility with existing code?
>
>No. It's just fix for Boost.Test unit-test to make it compartible with
>regression testing and one new feature. I asked to make sure.
No problem. Thanks for checking.
At 03:24 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> Anyone interested might want to read the actual proposal. See
>> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.pdf
>
>Yes, I found th
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b16f17$34i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16f17$34i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> SmartPtr(SmartPtr const& rhs,
> typename OP1::copyable* = 0)
> [...]
Looks good on paper, fails horribly in practice. Both bcc and vc++ choke
horribly on
The uniform_smallint class template has a ctor that takes a min and max
value. The documentation does not disallow min == max, and indeed there
are cases where it is convenient to allow this in order to avoid having
to write special cases in user code. Nevertheless, the implementation
disallow
"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At 01:42 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>
> >"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't
At 08:25 PM 1/28/2003, Edward Diener wrote:
>"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> At 01:42 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>>
>> >"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> BTW, this is also not the "strong guarantee" (I dunno, maybe people
> mean something else by "strongly exception safe" -- is there a
> definition somewhere?)
Does it even make sense to say
>From: "Rani Sharoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Yes, a class is it's own superclass/subclass, but IMO not it's own
> > > base: so it is a bug in the
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> BTW, this is also not the "strong guarantee" (I dunno, maybe people
>> mean something else by "strongly exception safe" -- is there a
>> de
Terje Slettebø <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>From: "Rani Sharoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> template
>> struct is_base_and_derived
>> {
>> private:
>> typedef char (&yes)[1];
>> typedef char (&no) [2];
>>
>> template
>> static yes check(D const volatile &, T);
>> static no che
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| By the way, the current typedef template proposal prohibits deduction; this
| makes it less attractive for creating subpointers.
More accurately, there are *two* notions being considered:
1) typedef template;
2) template aliasing -- the th
David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > 000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
| >> [...]
| >> By the way, the current typedef template pro
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| "Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > [...]
| > Anyone interested might want to read the actual proposal. See
| > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.pdf
|
| Yes, I
>From: "Terje Slettebø" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >From: "Rani Sharoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Before changing the documentation please consider the following improved
> > implemetation that overcomes ambiguity and access control issues of the
> > current is_base_and_derived implemetation (I lately
Hi Jeremy,
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 sto
Jeremy Siek wrote:
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
97 matches
Mail list logo
