On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Paul A Bristow wrote:
| Consequently, more than one constant out of 1 may suffer
| from this problem. So it is rare, but it is not impossible.
| It's why I was suggesting that a library should provide a
| mean to know if a number representing a constant is the
|
I am now confident that I understand what you are proposing.
It certainly seems The Right Thing To Do (tm)
but is more complicated for me to calculate, though not too bad.
I would welcome confirmation from other potential users that they agree.
Paul
PS Of course the problem of macro, function,
Well, we didn't do anything special to mis-configure it ;), besides
choosing MSVC 6 compatibility mode (during the setup, as opposite to
MSVC 7.0 one). Any ideas what's the right way to fix that?
The problem is that there is no way for the config system to tell how your
Intel compiler is set
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 01:12, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
hi there,
some weeks ago I proposed an API for XML, which triggered an interesting
discussion. Hamish Mackenzie proposed a somewhat simpler mechanism to attach
the C++ wrapper objects to the C structs from libxml2.
I reworked the API to
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
The thread library as of boost 1.30 does provide a struct xtime, which
is similar to timeval, except that xtime represents a time, while
timeval represents a time duration. The documentation for the thread
library suggests, however, that xtime is intended as a
Hi,
My company is using boost and we would very much like to use variant
library immediately and not wait for the next official release of boost.
Now, we know that this might not be sensible, but we are ready to take
the risk. At the same time, we don't want to break anything else in the
boost
Thanks to Dave Abrahams, Diane Cabell, Devin Smith, and Eva Chen, we now
have a pretty close to final draft of a new Boost Software License.
For as many Boost libraries as possible, the plan is to replace the
individual licenses with the official Boost license. Of course, the
developers who
Beman Dawes wrote:
Thanks to Dave Abrahams, Diane Cabell, Devin Smith, and Eva Chen, we now
have a pretty close to final draft of a new Boost Software License.
For as many Boost libraries as possible, the plan is to replace the
individual licenses with the official Boost license. Of course, the
Beman Dawes wrote:
[...]
* Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they
spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team?
They seem to have missed a whole bunch of issues surrounding implied
patent license.
regards,
alexander.
Peter Dimov wrote:
Beman's approach, where unexpected failures were automatically
determined by comparing the current run with aprevious run, seems to
cope better with this scenario, and requires no manual input.
Does it? What if the previous run was a total failure - what the next
one is
Peter Dimov wrote:
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Also, please note that I don't mind the _developer summary_ being
aggressive in its pass/fail reports. There are no expected
failures there as far as I'm concerned. Every failure needs to be
reported in red, with pass-fail
At 01:27 PM 6/25/2003, Paul Mensonides wrote:
* Boost developers; if there are aspects of the license that make you
hesitate about adopting it, what are the issues?
It looks fine to me Beman. Is this license (once it is completely
ironed out) supposed to go in each file?
The license is worded
[2003-06-25] Beman Dawes wrote:
For more background, including rationale, a FAQ, and acknowledgements, see
http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/license-background.html
Nice.
* Boosters for whom English isn't their primary language; is the license
understandable?
Spanish is my first, but English
Hi,
Beman Dawes wrote:
Thanks to Dave Abrahams, Diane Cabell, Devin Smith, and Eva Chen, we now
have a pretty close to final draft of a new Boost Software License.
The draft license itself is at
http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/LICENSE.txt
Wow!
While we are interested in comments from any
Hamish Mackenzie wrote:
Why should the node-wrappers keep the document alive?
for consistency, and convenience. In the same way you can get down from
the document to the individual nodes you can get up: node.parent() and
node.document() provide the means to walk up towards the document root.
My preference is for there to be a single license file in the
boost root
directory, and each file covered include a link. So a source
code file
might contain something like:
// (C) Jane Programmer, 2003
//
// See www.boost.org/license for license terms and conditions
//
// See
My preference is for there to be a single license file in the
boost root
directory, and each file covered include a link. So a source
code file
might contain something like:
// (C) Jane Programmer, 2003
//
// See www.boost.org/license for license terms and conditions
//
// See
[2003-06-25] Rene Rivera wrote:
must be included, in whole or in part, in all copies of the Software, and
all derivative works of the Software.
Oops, that should be: ...must me included in all... of the Software, in
whole or in part.
It just goes to show how hard it can be to understand this
Hi,
Some time ago there was tree-container proposal and if i don't mind there is one
in files section or in sandbox. During this discussion someone mentioned that
same interface can be used for xml document ...
Just curious if it is good idea ? Or it is unusable for heterogenous xml
(libxml2)
I would like to see if there is interest in incorporating the FC++
library into Boost.
FC++ is a library for functional programming. In FC++ we program with
functoids (classes which define operator() and obey certain other
conventions). The library features include:
- higher order,
Hi Bohdan,
even though you may think of a dom tree as 'just another tree', there is
really quite a bit of domain-specific semantics associated with it
that makes it impractical to use a general-purpose tree/graph library
as the underlying representation.
To get an idea of what these xml-specific
Beman,
Thanks for your work on this. Looks good to me. One minor thing:
No change from the current status. If your project does not
redistribute Boost source code, you don't have to redistribute the
license, regardless
of how much non-Boost source code is redistributed.
Hope that helps,
Hi Beman others,
One thing is slightly confusing. The second paragraph says:
The copyright notice in the Software and this entire statement,
_including the above license grant_,
this restriction and the following disclaimer, must be included ...
The author of a derivative work can put
Andreas Huber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|| What about html files? Are they considered to be under
|| the the Software umbrella? Html or any other form of
|| electronic documentation can be seen as software but you
|| could just as well argue that it's only data (which
|| AFAICT would not fall
At 09:02 AM 6/24/2003, Jeff Garland wrote:
... I wonder if we should consider releasing 1.30.1 ...
The Variant Library has been added, so it would be 1.31.0. And, yes, I
think we should start talking about a schedule.
--Beman
___
Unsubscribe other
Matt Hurd wrote:
The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive license
right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission must
still be included according to the draft license.
This would lead to a license text like:
snip
I am a little confused. Like
Matt Hurd wrote:
The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive
license
right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission
must
still be included according to the draft license.
This would lead to a license text like:
snip
I am a little confused. Like Jaakko,
Inspired by an article at the CUJ from Andrei Alexandrescu, I was
finally able to come up with a compose_f_gxy_hxy-adapter. I think that
it's the missing adapter to make compose.hpp complete. In the companies
production code, I needed it and used a much easier implementation with
some limitations,
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:38:46 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote
At 09:02 AM 6/24/2003, Jeff Garland wrote:
... I wonder if we should consider releasing 1.30.1 ...
The Variant Library has been added, so it would be 1.31.0. And, yes,
I think we should start talking about a schedule.
I was thinking
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 8:12 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
[SNIP]
As the wrapper objects have reference semantics, I append '_ptr' to
their name to stress that fact. A practical side-effect of this is
[TRUNCATE]
Shouldn't the type names use a suffix of _ref instead? (I don't need
to know
Daryle Walker wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 8:12 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
[SNIP]
As the wrapper objects have reference semantics, I append '_ptr' to
their name to stress that fact. A practical side-effect of this is
[TRUNCATE]
Shouldn't the type names use a suffix of _ref instead? (I
Glen Knowles wrote:
_ptr has a very specific meaning in CORBA as well, you must explicitly
manage the deletion of the object yourself, like, well... a pointer. If
you must use the CORBA namings this, at my first look, seems closer to
_var then _ptr. At which point I also think _ref is a better
Rene Rivera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[2003-06-25] Beman Dawes wrote:
For more background, including rationale, a FAQ, and acknowledgements, see
http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/license-background.html
Nice.
* Boosters for whom English isn't their primary language; is the license
Maciej Sobczak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's imagine the following situation (it can apply to any developer
on this planet): I write some code and want it to get public. It is
outside of mainstream Boost interest, so I do not intend to submit it
to Boost.
Being concerned with the legal
At 03:43 PM 6/25/2003, Maciej Sobczak wrote:
Well, I have a question.
I understand that the text of this license is primarily intended to be
used by Boost libraries and those that are candidates to be included in
Boost.
However, apart from the main Boost effort, some of the Boosters or just
Boost
At 01:50 PM 6/25/2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
[...]
* Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they
spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team?
They seem to have missed a whole bunch of issues surrounding implied
patent license.
THE
[2003-06-25] David Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
organization
obtaining a copy of the software covered by this license (the Software)
to: use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, transmit,
This
Drazen DOTLIC wrote:
Hi,
Hi Drazen,
My company is using boost and we would very much like to use variant
library immediately and not wait for the next official release of
boost. Now, we know that this might not be sensible, but we are ready
to take the risk. At the same time, we don't want
38 matches
Mail list logo
