[boost] Re: Has www.boost.org been hacked?
Raoul Gough wrote: Note that I only see the extra HTML when I download the page from Internet Explorer (version is 6.0.2600.IS). Opera shows a clean version of the page. I guess this suggests my IE has a virus, unless of course the web server only sends the Trojan to particular browsers. I don't see the trojan on other web pages. Sorry for the off-topic posting, but I thought this was important enough to warrant it. Maybe just a local problem after all. Your browser has a cached copy of the infected page. Clear your Temporary Internet Files and you should see a clean page. -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Boost spirit and embedded visual c++ 4.0
James Curran wrote: Kai Strempel wrote: Is it possible to use the boost spirit library with the micrsoft embedded visual c++ 4.0 compiler? I haven't try it now. But perhaps anybody knows something about that compiler together with boost spirit!! I have no first-hand knowledge, but I believe eVC4 is based on VC6, which has much trouble with Spirit. Further, as I recall, eVC4 doesn't implement exceptions, which are used throughout Boost. I believe you're correct. Those wanting to use boost in WinCE applications will have to wait for Whidbey, which will re-unite the core Windows compiler and the WinCE compiler (See http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/roadmap.aspx#whidbey) -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Formal Review: Command Line Config library
Vladimir Prus wrote: Holger Grund wrote: It expands to 13103077 (RTM). Thanks! BTW, what's RTM? Release To Manufacturing. -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals
James Curran wrote: Vladimir Prus wrote: The intent is to get/change the part of leaf name after the first dot. um.. After the FIRST dot or the LAST dot. In Win32, james.m.curran.txt the extention is txt, not m.curran.txt Note too that on Windows/NTFS, names like 'c:/foo/bar.baz.blip:blat' are legal. The 'extension' is '.blip', not '.baz.blip' and not '.baz.blip:blat'. The very existence of such special cases probably means that such a function would be a good addition to the filesystem library. -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: boost/limits.hpp Itanium2 RC_1_30_0
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote: If evaluating the output of the code below counts as a quick-and-easy-and-conclusive test the result is that the Itanium2 must be BOOST_LITTLE_ENDIAN like the i386 and Alpha lines. I.e. my patch needs to be revised (see below). Remember that Itanium(2) can use either Endianality - it's up to the OS/platform code to determine which Endianality is in use. It's entirely possible that there might be Itanium2 platforms with GCC that are big endian in addition to those that are little endian. Hopefully things don't work out that way... -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: 1.30.0 branch-for-release complete
Beman Dawes wrote: At 04:01 PM 3/3/2003, Mark Rodgers wrote: How many extra people would be encourage to test the beta? Good question. Are there others interested in a beta? I'd love to see beta releases (ZIP'd packaged like a full release). -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Re: Regression progress; Win32
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Curiosity got the better of me, and I did an experimental run on build 2292. Looks pretty good. A vast improvement over prior releases. Problems noted: * Missing overloads for long long. * boost/type_traits/is_convertible.hpp line 153 giving it fits. * A few other scattered failures on code working for other compilers. I'm not going to post the results; no point in worrying about workarounds until we see what the actual shipped version does. I have the RC1 version, build 2346. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to run the regression tests on any regular basis. Hopefully someone else with build 2292 or 2346 can run them at least now then. From what I recall from earlier testing, most of the problems with this compiler stem from workarounds put in for earlier VC versions that aren't disabled for _MSC_VER = 0x1310. -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Regression progress; Win32
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... This morning's Win32 regression tests have been posted. Looking at the diff, http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-win32-diff.html, there are still some worries: An aside - Since 1.30.0 will likely be the Boost version when MSVC 7.1 (Everett) ships, it would be nice to have VC7.1 regression results. I can understand perhaps not posting 7.1 results until the RTM version is available, but is anyone even running the regression tests on the final beta (build 2292) or RC1 (build 2346) versions regularly? -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: is_convertible and vc7.1 final beta
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Apparently, vc7.1 final beta fails to handle is_convertible properly under some circumstances. I tried searching a little bit for workarounds and came up empty. If anyone else would like to try, comment out the line which says # define BOOST_NO_IS_CONVERTIBLE // is_convertible doesn't work in $BOOST_SANDBOX/boost/iterator/iterator_adaptors.hpp, go to $BOOST_SANDBOX/boost/libs/iterator/test, and do: bjam -sBOOST=path-to-boost-root indirect_iterator_test Was this tested with the RC1 release (build 2346)? If not, I'll give it a whirl tomorrow - it may be something that was broken only in build 2292. Does this require a current boost snapshot from CVS, or will a 1.29 installation suffice? (Seeing sandbox in the above, I'm assuming the latter...) -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Re: is_convertible and vc7.1 final beta
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:uvg0vjjrc.fsf@boost- How come I don't have build 2346? I've been on the Microsoft alpha program. Just lucky, I guess ;-) Apparently they only sent 2346 to people who'd submitted more than 'X' bug reports via BetaPlace. Does this require a current boost snapshot from CVS, or will a 1.29 installation suffice? (Seeing sandbox in the above, I'm assuming the latter...) I don't know whether it works with 1.29; I was working with the latest. I can send you a zipped file which reproduces the problem all by itself. That would be cool. If it's a regression from 2292 (and especially if it's a regression from VC7) they might just consider fixing it before RTM. -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Call for Volunteers [license review]
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... This is a formal call for volunteers to fill out a few of the open-source license evaluations at http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License OCLC Research Public License done - fails. Incorporates a potentially useful technique for dealing with source code versus binary distributions. Rather than using those terms, this license speaks in terms of distributions which and end-user can modify (source code) or cannot modify (object code). The one blatent failure is that this license requires an attribution in or with binary distributions. Open Software License done - fails. This license requires that all derivative works must also use this license. -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: implicit_cast inventor
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I'm all for bending over backwards to protect Booster's intellectual property rights, but I having a lot of trouble applying IP concepts to such a posting. Am I off-base here? I think you're spot-on, and the Brittish would say. Isn't posting something to usenet considered to put that posting into the public domain? While boost is a mailing list, it's also being mirrored onto an NNTP server, and onto more than one web-based searchable archive which require no authentication/membership/agreement/etc whatsoever. -cd ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
