I don't (yet). Why do we need yet another macro which means turn off
the workarounds? Would BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG then be obsolete?
I think that the idea is that BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG applies only to
unknown
compiler versions, and BOOST_DISABLE_WORKAROUNDS (do we need separate
On 07 Dec 2002 21:16:49 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean it is invalid to reinterpret_cast to void*?
Well, I'm not sure.
5.2.10/7: A pointer to an object can be explicitly converted to
a pointer to an object of different type.65) Except that converting
an rvalue
Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
The date/time library provides several implementations of date/time string
conversion.
Unfortunately, none of these include formatted date/time conversions. In trying to
duplicate the functionality of VarFormat for dates, I can do so (relatively) easily
What is
I've started running my boost backup script.
Could you let me know the URL when you've got the wiki backup available?
Please contact me offline for the URL. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| If void* is not a pointer to an object then reinterpret_castvoid*
| is invalid. Otherwise it just yields an undefined result. I haven't
| found a definition of pointer to object in the standard; anyhow
| certainly void is not an object type.
void*
On 08 Dec 2002 15:09:32 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| If void* is not a pointer to an object then reinterpret_castvoid*
| is invalid. Otherwise it just yields an undefined result.
I should have said unspecified, sorry.
I
I don't think that anyone is going to find a new quote from the standard
that will end the discussion on reinterpret_cast. Even and email from Bjarne
okayed by three major platform compiler developers probably wouldn't suffice
anymore.
I had pointed out that instead of using any cast, one can
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:16:39 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just checked in boost/detail/workaround.hpp, which defines the
BOOST_WORKAROUND macro.
This macro can and should be used in place of explicit tests for
particular compiler/library/platform versions.
Just some
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| I haven't
| | found a definition of pointer to object in the standard; anyhow
| | certainly void is not an object type.
|
| void* is the generic type of pointer to object.
|
| Well, as I said I don't find any definition of the expression pointer
Eric Woodruff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| Here's a question: Since h.storage is _meant_ to be accessed by those that
| do not know the type of the object inside, shouldn't it have been designed
I'm afraid the above is not an accurate description of the purpose of
holderT.
One primary
--- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
// untested
#define BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) BOOST_JOIN(symbol, 1)
#define BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test) \
(BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) symbol test)
This will fail if symbol1 is defined, won't it?
Why?
[snip]
while
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:34:48 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
// untested
#define BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) BOOST_JOIN(symbol, 1)
#define BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test) \
(BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) symbol test)
This will fail if symbol1 is defined,
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:34:48 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
// untested
#define BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) BOOST_JOIN(symbol, 1)
#define BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test) \
(BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) symbol
--- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:34:48 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
// untested
#define BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) BOOST_JOIN(symbol, 1)
#define BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)
--- Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying I hold the truth. I'm offering my reading, just as others
are doing.
Yeah, that's ok. I meant: it's unlikely that we can really find a
quote from the standard that says the last word here. Maybe the intent
was to make
It may be time to post a question to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:59 PM 12/8/2002, you wrote:
--- Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying I hold the truth. I'm offering my reading, just as others
are doing.
Yeah, that's ok. I meant: it's unlikely that we can really find a
quote
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:34:48 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
// untested
#define BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) BOOST_JOIN(symbol, 1)
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 13:16:24 -0700, Greg Colvin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may be time to post a question to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you very much. What is that? An internal list for the C++
committee? Is it open to everybody, or you meant that *you* are going
to post a question there?
Genny.
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:45:39 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, there's no problem with __SUNPRO_CCBOOST_NUMERIC_DEFINED_SUFFIX, just
with __SUNPRO_CC1.
We seem to be talking past one another. I've been trying to tell you
that
On Sunday 08 December 2002 09:41, Daryle Walker wrote:
Did the people who arrange formal reviews see this?
Yes, this time. Sorry for missing your first post. Can you give me a short
summary of what this stuff is about and whether it should be reviewed
together or seperately. Where is this
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:01:10PM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
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
I've just read and answered the questions for the
21 matches
Mail list logo
