Thanks Steve, for considering my issues.
4) what's the use of ordered_alloc/ordered_free? I made a few tests and
they are indeed a bit slower than regular alloc/free, without any
apparent advantage. Am I missing something?
Keeping the free list ordered allows algorithms that traverse the free
I built the library individually with the following line :
bjam -sTOOLS=gcc-stlport -sSTLPORT_ROOT=...
everything seems to compile properly but when I use the following from a
.so
:
boost::regex exp(std);
I get the following error from dlopen:
ld.so.1: output/Text2RvMsg_tester: fatal:
Alexei,
Looks like we're all thinking alike, a while ago I put together a sequence
based substring class that could act as a universal wrapper for any string
like object, along with a set of algorithms to act upon it: it's based
loosely on Darin Adler's original string algorithm code.
classes:
According to g++ and comeau, the following is illegal: (The commented line
allows the code to compile.)
class A {
public:
A () {}
~A () {}
private:
class Nested;
//friend class B;
};
class B {
public:
B () {}
~B () {}
private:
friend class
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 10:57:17AM -0500, Eric Woodruff wrote:
It is ridiculous that I can't give access to an inaccessible class. You have
to have access to be able to give it? What is the justification for this?
The reason for making things private is to say this is an
implementation detail
Hi,
I've been following the library and the discussion surrounding it since it
was first announced on the list.
I believe it is a very important and much needed component and I thank
Robert for bringing it forward to the boost community!
For the review I have gathered some issues I would like to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mattias Flodin) writes:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 10:57:17AM -0500, Eric Woodruff wrote:
It is ridiculous that I can't give access to an inaccessible class. You have
to have access to be able to give it? What is the justification for this?
The reason for making things
Please feel free to edit the wiki pages with comments, etc.
Looks like a nice start. I see you have already captured Beman and
others prior work. I have added a references page for pointers to
other C++ socket libraries and other references as well as a few
other quick thoughts. See
Can we add -Wno-non-virtual-dtor to g++ tests? The ability of shared_ptr to
support nonvirtual destructors is an essential feature, and the tests do
exercize it.
--
Peter Dimov
http://www.pdimov.com
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:13:14 +0100, Boris Schäling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your library requirements.
Thanks.
I don't agree that a socket library should wrap rather than invent.
Agreed that the C++ library should leverage the power of C++,
but we could do this while remaining in some
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 11:18:24 -0700, Jeff Garland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I see you have already captured Beman and
others prior work. I have added a references page for pointers to
other C++ socket libraries and other references as well as a few
other quick thoughts. See
Robert Ramey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thats all for now. I will have much more to say on this topic in the coming days.
Please say it soon, if so. The review period ends on Monday and I'd
like to have your information for when I evaluate everything
Thanks,
Dave
--
At 02:46 PM 11/23/2002, Hugo Duncan wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:13:14 +0100, Boris Schäling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I read your library requirements.
Thanks.
I don't agree that a socket library should wrap rather than invent.
Agreed that the C++ library should leverage the power of C++,
Jeff,
Thanks. As regards times, we should definitely be using the time_duration
from boost date_time!
Yes, but we'll need to do something with the core. If you just used
posix_time::time_duration out of the box it is a bit of a heavy
dependency for the need.
Would you have any code
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Hugo Duncan
Gesendet: Samstag, 23. November 2002 20:47
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: [boost] Re: AW: Sockets
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:13:14 +0100, Boris Schäling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm interested in participating in the design and implementation of a Sockets library.
Your initial documents look like a good start.
I have some comments, suggestions, and general ideas about a sockets library. Where
should I post these? Should I add them to the Wiki page, or maybe post them
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
discussions, I have tried to start describing a design at:
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?BoostSocket
When I look at the examples I'm curious why I see this:
socket_base::initialise();
...
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:23:37 -0600, Rob Tougher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where should I post these?
Wherever you see fit :-)
I would suggest the mail list for discussion, and the wiki for
capturing points that you don't wan't to get lost.
___
I'm interested in participating in the design and implementation of a
Sockets library. Your initial documents look like a good start.
Great! You will note that I posted references to your Linux Journal
articles :-)
I have put together an initial implementation in the boost-sandbox.
The aim of this code is really just to have something concrete
to discuss and to have as a base to experiment on.
The implementation more or less reflects the design presented at
Thomas Matelich wrote:
Dirk Gerrits wrote in message
ar37hg$6hm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:ar37hg$6hm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Thomas Matelich wrote:
Anyway, seemed like a nice package for general use. My company is
currently in love with XML, so I probably wouldn't be using it for our
commercial
Boris,
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 21:35:58 +0100, Boris Schäling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
favoured independent socket classes.
Not sure what you mean by independent classes?
java.net and java.nio packages provide different approaches to
Had a quick look at these. Isn't java.nio just a layer on top of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hugo Duncan
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 12:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [boost] Re: AW: Re: AW: Sockets
Boris,
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 21:35:58 +0100, Boris Schäling
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Garland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4) The MPL team used another Wiki to develop documentation.
Not sure how that worked. Aleksey care to comment?
I can tell you that it ended up being pretty one-sided. It was great
for Aleksey - he had the whole Wiki on his local machine and could
edit
David Abrahams wrote:
Jeff Garland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4) The MPL team used another Wiki to develop documentation.
Not sure how that worked. Aleksey care to comment?
I can tell you that it ended up being pretty one-sided. It was great
for Aleksey - he had the whole Wiki on his
25 matches
Mail list logo
