Eric Lemings wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: svn commit: r678913 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x:
./ etc/config/src/ examples/include/ include/ include/loc/
include/rw/ src/ tests/containers/ tests/localization/
tests/strings/ tests/utilities/
...
==============================================================
================
--- stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include/deque.cc (original)
+++ stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include/deque.cc Tue Jul 22 14:24:01 2008
@@ -518,8 +518,6 @@
}
-#ifndef _RWSTD_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATES
-
template <class _TypeT, class _Allocator>
template <class _InputIter>
void deque<_TypeT, _Allocator>::
@@ -529,18 +527,6 @@
deque* const __self = this;
And here we should be able to do away with the __self hack. This
hack, btw., is probably used in other containers (string comes
to mind, although it doesn't look to me like your patch removes
this cruft from string), so we should review and clean those up
as well. Otherwise these strange looking vestiges will leave
people wondering what the heck we're doing.
Since this change is not related to STDCXX-978 and involves other
containers not affected by this issue, we should create a new
issue and do this cleanup as part of that issue, yes?
I believe it is directly related. The hack is part of the
workaround for _RWSTD_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATES (there shouldn't
be any other places where we use it).
...
+
static void swap(reference __x, reference __y);
+
void flip ();
+
void clear()
These are good changes but in the future please resist the urge
to improve formatting in the same patch as where you're making
substantive changes.
I agree in principle but for very small changes like this I probably
wouldn't bother going to the trouble of doing this separately. :)
There are good reasons to keep formatting changes out of
unrelated patches. Besides those mentioned on our page
below, it makes reviewing big patches much easier and more
reliable.
http://stdcxx.apache.org/bugs.html#patch_format
Thanks
Martin
I'm incorporating all other recommendations.
Thanks,
Brad.
