RE: [boost] boost::bind question

Trey Jackson wrote: > >template boost::function1 >DataType> > > >class work_crew { > > std::list queue_; > > FunctionType engine_; > >public: > > work_crew(FunctionType const& tocall); > > void add(DataType d) { queue_.push_front(d); }; > > void dowork() > > { > >t

Re: [boost] boost::bind question

> >Jaakko wrote: [snip] Apologies, I cut/paste the wrong name. Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote the text I quoted. -- Trey Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] "This man is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot." -- filed in an officer fitness report in the British Royal Navy _

[boost] Boost Crashes after Compiling with Mingw?

I've installed boost's threading library following the build instructions inthe documentation. I was unable to get bjam to work. No matter what I triedit won't accept my include or library paths for mingw. However, usingDev-C++, I set up projects using the appropriate include and librarydire

Re: [boost] boost::bind question

Jaakko wrote: >I was doing something like it recently, so, sure: Awesome! >template DataType> > >class work_crew { > std::list queue_; > FunctionType engine_; >public: > work_crew(FunctionType const& tocall); > void add(DataType d) { queue_.push_front(d); }; > void dowork

RE: [boost] boost::bind question

Trey Jackson wrote: > Just started using boost::bind, like it a lot. > I'm playing around with a little work crew, > which just queues up data, then calls the function > on them later. [...] > I'd like to be able to do something like: > , > | work_crew mycrew(bind(&X::f, &x, _1, _

[boost] Re: Preliminary submission: command line & config file library

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Vincent N. Virgilio wrote: >> FYI, xParam (sourceforge) seems to fulfill similar requirements. > > I had a brief look at the project before, and looked for another time now. > Are you sure that project called > "XParam - General-Purpose Objec

[boost] Re: Preliminary submission: command line & config file library

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Abrahams wrote: > "Vincent N. Virgilio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> FYI, xParam (sourceforge) seems to fulfill similar requirements. > > > > As a matter of nettiquette, please limit the length of quoted text in > your replies to this list. This one was

[boost] Re: Thread-Local Storage (TLS) and templates

"Ken Hagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message b32951$hn8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b32951$hn8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Reading various replies, we appear to have a couple of things that > aren't completely pinned down: the type of "&k" and the implementation > of TLS.rest snipped... You have po

[boost] boost::bind question

All, Using boost 1_29_0, Linux gcc3.2.1. Just started using boost::bind, like it a lot. I'm playing around with a little work crew, which just queues up data, then calls the function on them later. bind does a great job of packaging up functions for later use. is there an analogue for the argume

[boost] Re: [variant] Problems compiling Variant under gcc 3.2

Ronald Garcia wrote: > I am attempting to use GCC 3.2 to review the variant library, but I am > getting compile-time errors: > > boost/variant.hpp:569: no class template named `mpl' in > `boost::detail::variant >' > boost/variant.hpp:569: parse error before `,' token > boost/variant.hpp:569: te

[boost] Re: Re: Formal review of Variant Library (Ed B.)

Peter Dimov wrote: [snip] > Destroying a const object is fine, but there is no reason to have a const in > the argument. > > template void call_destructor(T & t) { t.~T(); } > > X const x; > > f(x); // OK, T = X const > > f(5); // compile-time fail Good point. Even though the class is in the detai

[boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

Well, being relatively a newbie at all this stuff, I have to admit that the initial discussion of performing a lock using a (smart) pointer, seemed odd to me. Someone later "clarified" that a smart pointer doesn't need to use * and -> operators... something very non-pointer-like to me... * The

RE: [boost] Re: binding

Yet an other remark but this time about the answer of Graig Henderson to Greg Dehass: >>Greg, >>From the Linker Error, it looks like you're using Microsoft Visual C++. I >>discovered a bug recently with MSVC7.0 which may be the same as you're >>seeing here, but it is reported to be fixed in Everet

RE: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

> > The only place where you will see usage of the name > smart_ptr is somewhere > > deep in library code: > > > > typedef smart_ptr <...> GlobalMemoryHandler; > > > > After that you will use non-confusing name GlobalMemoryHandler. > > It may work out that way in this case - but why not make the

Re: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

> > Hmmm, unless you are thinking of null pointers I can't think of any pointers > > that don't refer to resources. Perhaps we have a different definition of > > resource? > > Could you elaborate? > > I think of resources as things which can be separately managed > independent of other objects. He

Re: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

> > [Anthony Williams] > > > On Windows, for example, you can use GlobalAlloc to > > allocate some memory, > > and > > > you get an HGLOBAL back --- a handle to the memory. [..] > > This sounds like a perfect case where using a smart_PTR would be very > > confusing, maybe dangerously so! [Gennadiy

Re: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

> >Hmmm, unless you are thinking of null pointers I can't think of any pointers > >that don't refer to resources. Perhaps we have a different definition of > >resource? > > Or of 'refer to resources'? > > char * ptr = new char [12]; // points to (ergo, refers to) resource > char * ptr2 = ptr+4 ;

RE: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

> -Original Message- > From: Phil Nash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:13 PM > To: Boost mailing list > Subject: Re: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource > > > [Anthony Williams] > > On Windows, for example, you can use GlobalAlloc to > allocate some

RE: [boost] smart_ptr vs smart_resource

> Well the problem I see is that we are using an entity with > "pointer" written > all over it (the name especially, but also the primary > semantics). Surely > managing general resources according to RAII principles is a > more general > concept than managing pointers to objects? > At the very

Re: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

"Phil Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Pointers are Resources >> >> > Resources are not (all) Pointers. >> >> >> >> Actually, >> >> >> >> Pointers *refer to* resources >> >> Not all pointers refer to (are) resources >> > >> > How about: >> > >> > Pointers are a

[boost] [variant] Problems compiling Variant under gcc 3.2

Hello, I am attempting to use GCC 3.2 to review the variant library, but I am getting compile-time errors: boost/variant.hpp:569: no class template named `mpl' in `boost::detail::variant ' boost/variant.hpp:569: parse error before `,' token boost/variant.hpp:569: template argument 1 is invali

Re: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

Phil Nash: >> Not all pointers refer to resources. > >Hmmm, unless you are thinking of null pointers I can't think of any pointers >that don't refer to resources. Perhaps we have a different definition of >resource? Or of 'refer to resources'? char * ptr = new char [12]; // points to

Re: [boost] smart_ptr vs smart_resource

> David Abrahams wrote: > > "Phil Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Pointers are Resources > >> Resources are not (all) Pointers. > > > > Actually, > > > > Pointers *refer to* resources > > Not all pointers refer to (are) resources > > I like word games: > > Not all res

Re: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

[Anthony Williams] > On Windows, for example, you can use GlobalAlloc to allocate some memory, and > you get an HGLOBAL back --- a handle to the memory. You need to call > GlobalLock with that handle to get a pointer to the memory which you can > actually use. The resource manager therefore needs t

Re: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

> >> > Pointers are Resources > >> > Resources are not (all) Pointers. > >> > >> Actually, > >> > >> Pointers *refer to* resources > >> Not all pointers refer to (are) resources > > > > How about: > > > > Pointers are a way of referring to resources. > > Not all

Re: [boost] Re: Lock Classes: Does anyone care.

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > > > > I have changed the definition to: > > > > > > > > #ifdef FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY > > > ^^^ > > > > > > > static const pthread_m

Re: [boost] smart_ptr vs smart_resource

David Abrahams wrote: > "Phil Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Pointers are Resources >> Resources are not (all) Pointers. > > Actually, > > Pointers *refer to* resources > Not all pointers refer to (are) resources I like word games: Not all resources are referred to usi

Re: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

Anthony Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> "Phil Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Pointers are Resources >> > Resources are not (all) Pointers. >> >> Actually, >> >> Pointers *refer to* resources >> Not all pointe

Re: [boost] Re: Thread-Local Storage (TLS) and templates

"Ken Hagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Reading various replies, we appear to have a couple of things that > aren't completely pinned down: the type of "&k" and the implementation > of TLS. I think you may be missing the point that in some sense &k doesn't have to have a single type. At compil

[boost] Re: Thread-Local Storage (TLS) and templates

Ken Hagan wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Ken Hagan wrote: > > [...] > >> 3a If we allow C<&k> [...] It is then possible to initialise static > >>variables [...] and the results depend on the thread that ran > >>first. Again, we have the same "problem" passing a pointer to > >>

[boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource

David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Phil Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Pointers are Resources > > Resources are not (all) Pointers. > > Actually, > > Pointers *refer to* resources > Not all pointers refer to (are) resources How about: Pointers

[boost] Re: Thread-Local Storage (TLS) and templates

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Ken Hagan wrote: > [...] >> 3a If we allow C<&k> [...] It is then possible to initialise static >>variables [...] and the results depend on the thread that ran >>first. Again, we have the same "problem" passing a pointer to >>a function, so I'm not bothered

[boost] Re: Lock Classes: Does anyone care.

Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > > I have changed the definition to: > > > > > > #ifdef FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY > > ^^^ > > > > > static const pthread_mutex_t MUTEX_INIT = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; > > > > Uhmm. What d

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Thread-Local Storage (TLS) and templates

Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > | > However, my point is that > | > > | > * a class is closed: that is, by the time you put the closing brace, > | > the "offset" of the data me

Re: [boost] smart_ptr vs smart_resource

"Phil Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Pointers are Resources > Resources are not (all) Pointers. Actually, Pointers *refer to* resources Not all pointers refer to (are) resources -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Thread-Local Storage (TLS) and templates

David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | > David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | Let me reiterate, just in case somebody missed it: this is a similar | > | problem to that of using a pointer/reference-to-data-member as a | > | te

[boost] Re: Boost.Conversion: possible problem with gcc3

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:51:42 -0500, "Davlet Panech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hello, > >I'm getting the following warning in gcc 3.2/CYGWIN/boost 1.29: > >% /cygdrive/c/boost/boost_1_29_0/boost/cast.hpp:178: warning: decimal >constant is so large that it is unsigned > >173: static long long mi

[boost] Re: Patch for dynamic_bitset

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:17:17 +0100, Markus Schöpflin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> PS: I'll write to Jeremy about the merge. > >Great, thanks. Thanks to *you*! I've informed him now. Genny. ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/ma

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Thread-Local Storage (TLS) and templates

Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Let me reiterate, just in case somebody missed it: this is a similar > | problem to that of using a pointer/reference-to-data-member as a > | template paramter. You can think of each thread-local globa

Re: [boost] Re: Lock Classes: Does anyone care.

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > I have changed the definition to: > > > > #ifdef FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY > ^^^ > > > static const pthread_mutex_t MUTEX_INIT = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; > > Uhmm. What does your "fast destruction" do? Well, looki

[boost] smart_ptr vs smart_resource

Hi all, This is something I have brought up before and it has come up again on the "Lock Classes" thread and I have made some new comments there, as well as some others touching on the same area: http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/1544269 http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Mes

Re: Re: [boost] Sunpro compilation problems with current "main" CVS

>The problem I am encountering now with the current snapshot is a template >relative >problem in type_traits/is_based_and_derived.hpp. The compiler >asserts; probably >because of a template argument matching problem that the >preprocessor has. I'm not >sure, but I would like to find out how to

[boost] Re: Thread-Local Storage (TLS) and templates

Ken Hagan wrote: [...] > 3a If we allow C<&k> [...] It is then possible to initialise static >variables [...] and the results depend on the thread that ran >first. Again, we have the same "problem" passing a pointer to >a function, so I'm not bothered by this. 3b We allow C<&k> a

[boost] Re: Lock Classes: Does anyone care.

Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > struct pthread_mutex_t_ { > > > > /* ... */ > > > > #ifdef __cplusplus > > > > __copy_ctor(const pthread_mutex_t_&) { > > throw "Don't do this!"; > > } > > > > #endif > > > > }; > > typedef str

[boost] Re: Lock Classes: Does anyone care.

Peter Dimov wrote: [...] > What makes you think that statically initializing a mutex is faster? It only > defers the initialization until the first lock call occurs. That's the way how it works under win32. ;-) > Plus, pthread_mutex_init gives you the option to test for errors, should you > dec

Re: [boost] shared_ptr and null pointer values.

"Fernando Cacciola (Home)" wrote: > > Hi! > > I'm under the process of getting rid of some of my old > smart pointers replacing them by shared_ptr<>. > There is however one idiomatic usage that it's pretty > hard to locate and edit, so I wondered if shared_ptr<> > could support it. I don't think

[boost] Re: shared_ptr and null pointer values.

"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "Fernando Cacciola \(Home\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi! > > > > I'm under the process of getting rid of some of my old > > smart pointers replacing them by shared_ptr<>. > > There is how

[boost] Re: No mail

Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 05:27 AM 2/20/2003, Anthony Williams wrote: > > >Is there something up with the boost list today? I haven't received > >anything > >on the list since yesterday, though a quick check on gmane indicates that > >there has been activity. > > Early Tue

Re: [boost] shared_ptr and null pointer values.

"Fernando Cacciola \(Home\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi! > > I'm under the process of getting rid of some of my old > smart pointers replacing them by shared_ptr<>. > There is however one idiomatic usage that it's pretty > hard to locate and edit, so I wondered if shared_ptr<> > could suppor

Re: [boost] Re: Lock Classes: Does anyone care.

[Anthony Williams] > I agree. It would be nice to have a generic RAII framework that went beyond > ScopeGuard, and allowed for all the ownership semantics associated with the > various forms of smart pointer, whilst permitting the resource itself to be > something quite distinct from a pointer. > >

[boost] shared_ptr and null pointer values.

Hi! I'm under the process of getting rid of some of my old smart pointers replacing them by shared_ptr<>. There is however one idiomatic usage that it's pretty hard to locate and edit, so I wondered if shared_ptr<> could support it. One is initialization from a null pointer value, as in: struct C

Re: [boost] Re: Lock Classes: Does anyone care.

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Peter Dimov wrote: > Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > #ifdef FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY > > Mutex() : l_(MUTEX_INIT) {} > > #else > > Mutex() {pthread_mutex_init(&l_, 0);} > > ~Mutex() {pthread_mutex_destroy($l_);} > > #endif > > What makes you think that statically initial

Re: [boost] No mail

At 05:27 AM 2/20/2003, Anthony Williams wrote: >Is there something up with the boost list today? I haven't received >anything >on the list since yesterday, though a quick check on gmane indicates that >there has been activity. Early Tuesday (US Central time) an HP router got into a fight with a C

[boost] Re: Lock Classes: Does anyone care.

"Phil Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However, I still say that the overriding issue here is simply that of > *name*. Smart pointers and resource wrappers are, and still increasingly so, > important concepts. Having such a confusing name->intent relationship is, to > me, very counter-productiv

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Thread-Local Storage (TLS) and templates

David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | > "Ken Hagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | Peter Dimov wrote: | > | > | > | > &k does not exist yet at compile-time (in a pointer to int form), when | > | > templates are instantiated. | > | |

Re: [boost] Sunpro compilation problems with current "main" CVSsnapshot.

The problem I am encountering now with the current snapshot is a template relative problem in type_traits/is_based_and_derived.hpp. The compiler asserts; probably because of a template argument matching problem that the preprocessor has. I'm not sure, but I would like to find out how to work around

Re: [boost] Re: Repost: Borland related patches

> Did you try to define BOOST_NO_INCLASS_MEMBER_INITIALIZATION for > borland? This will toggle BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT to use the enum > workaround and might fix most of the problems you are having with BCC > not allowing static constant members as integral constant expressions > in template paramete

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Lock Classes: Does anyone care.

"Gennadiy Rozental" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:... > > In that fashion it makes sense. But the only smart_ptr that will > > make any sense is scoped_ptr. Which will only implement idea #1. > > As I said my classes offer far more. > > Under smart_ptr I

Re: [boost] Re: Lock Classes: Does anyone care.

[Alisdair] > > To use an old English idiom, I think you are putting the cart before > > the horse [as did Modern C++ Design, IMNSHO] > > > > Resource protection is a useful concept, and pointers are simply > > another resource that needs protecting. It makes little sense to > > dereference a mute

Re: [boost] Re: Lock Classes: Does anyone care.

Kevin Atkinson wrote: > #ifdef FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY > Mutex() : l_(MUTEX_INIT) {} > #else > Mutex() {pthread_mutex_init(&l_, 0);} > ~Mutex() {pthread_mutex_destroy($l_);} > #endif What makes you think that statically initializing a mutex is faster? It only defers the initialization

Re: [boost] Re: Formal review of Variant Library (Ed B.)

Itay Maman wrote: > "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > b2ug4i$a8q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b2ug4i$a8q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> "Eric Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> b2uflv$86s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b2uflv$86s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >>> [...] >>> const T& r = ..

[boost] No mail

Is there something up with the boost list today? I haven't received anything on the list since yesterday, though a quick check on gmane indicates that there has been activity. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Senior Software Engineer, Beran Instruments Ltd. Remove NOSPAM when replying, for timely resp

[boost] Re: Thread-Local Storage (TLS) and templates

Reading various replies, we appear to have a couple of things that aren't completely pinned down: the type of "&k" and the implementation of TLS. 1 If "&k" is a regular pointer to integer and TLS is implemented by tweaking page tables for each thread, then "&k" has the same value in each th

[boost] Re: Formal review of Variant Library (Ed B.)

"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in messagenews:b2ug4i$a8q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> "Eric Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message> news:b2uflv$86s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> > [...]> >   const T& r = ...;> >   r.~T();> >> > Even if my understanding is correct though, it may be best for dest

[boost] Re: Patch for dynamic_bitset

Gennaro Prota wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:03:22 +0100, Markus Schöpflin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The main difference is that it casts the NULL to void * and VA6 can deal with that. I just tried. This means that the version on the branch would work with this compiler. Ah! Here's where the