Somewhere in the E.U., le 25/02/2003
Bonjour
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jason D Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know this is well after the discussion on the stats class has ended,
but I think I have a good idea here.
Scott Kirkwood proposed a class that behaves something like
From: Michael Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Correction required for boost/random/lognormal_distribution.
Fixed, thanks!
Bjorn Karlsson
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Ken Hagan wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Uhmm. In return, I venture to suggest that MS-TLS can and shall be
characterized as ``utterly busted.''
Fine, but the OP asked about existing practice and the bugs
don't change the fact that k can be a template parameter
if the compiler is
Ken Hagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Alexander Terekhov wrote:
|
| Uhmm. In return, I venture to suggest that MS-TLS can and shall be
| characterized as ``utterly busted.''
|
| Fine, but the OP asked about existing practice and the bugs
| don't change the fact that k can be a template
Hi,
While making myself an interim shared_resource class, I found myself reusing
the shared_ptr safe-bool conversion, and thought that really the idiom ought
to go into the operators library.
I am unsure about the name, but for now bool_testable seems to match the
naming style used by the rest
Guys,
In case any of you don't have enough to do (!) I've placed the next draft of
my regular expression standardisation proposal at
http://www.regex.fsnet.co.uk/n1429dft.htm, as ever comments, nit picks etc
are very welcome (the deadline for this revision is Monday the 3rd March).
For those of
Hi,
There is a reference to the 1.29.0 distribution in
boost/libs/mpl/doc/index.html#source
Shouldn't this be removed before 1.30 is branched?
Thomas
--
Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Witt
Institut fuer Verkehrswesen, Eisenbahnbau und -betrieb, Universitaet Hannover
voice: +49(0) 511 762 - 4273, fax:
Andreas Huber wrote:
P.S. Is it a good idea to use mpl::aux::msvc_eti_base on all platforms (on
conforming compilers I'd expect it to call mpl::identity) or should I
#ifdef my way around it?
Yep, it's intentionally written in the way so that you don't have to #ifdef
in your code.
Aleksey
Sorry for confusion, the reply below obviously belongs to a different
thread.
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
Andreas Huber wrote:
P.S. Is it a good idea to use mpl::aux::msvc_eti_base on all platforms
(on
conforming compilers I'd expect it to call mpl::identity) or should I
#ifdef my way around
Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ken Hagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| This analgoy does not cut it: You don't have a function fk by
| thread. You have a -single- function designator. And the return
| value depends on the calling thread.
|
|
Michael Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Boosters,
This is just a quick reminder of regression before boost_1_30_0 gets
released. Without CVS access I can fix it myself and Jens seems to be
offline at the moment. It would be great if someone could step in and
make a simple correction.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have yet to see a compelling reason to embrace the MS
``TLS-template'' innovation.
Ah. Well, that's an entirely different matter ;-). I was going on
the assumption that there was a reasonable argument for the existence
of the feature, and just
Sam Partington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
While making myself an interim shared_resource class, I found myself reusing
the shared_ptr safe-bool conversion, and thought that really the idiom ought
to go into the operators library.
I am unsure about the name, but for now bool_testable
Daniel Frey wrote:
Hi,
I came across the following problem:
When I have a class X which lives in a namespace where there's a
function 'checked_delete' declared that can take a X*, smart_ptr (and
probably others) that use checked_deleter (note the 'r'!) cannot call
checked_delete. It's
Thomas Witt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
There is a reference to the 1.29.0 distribution in
boost/libs/mpl/doc/index.html#source
Shouldn't this be removed before 1.30 is branched?
I think Aleksey is planning to check in completely new docs before
1.30 goes out.
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost
Is yield intended to always yield to another thread if one can run?
Because the code for yield is
void thread::yield()
{
#if defined(BOOST_HAS_WINTHREADS)
Sleep(0);
#elif defined(BOOST_HAS_PTHREADS)
# if defined(BOOST_HAS_SCHED_YIELD)
int res = 0;
res = sched_yield();
Essentially you supply a operator! and it supplies an unspecified-bool-type
conversion operator.
Nice idea! I already had something similar in mind, but you managed to
make it really generic.
//Key
//T: primary operand type
//t: values of type T
// TemplateSupplied Operations
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Abrahams wrote:
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, right're right :-)
Is perfectly possible to simply discard it, though to me it looks
kind of akward in anything but deeply low-level code.
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Go ahead and make the change, unless someone voices an objection.
I'm wondering how may other places we have similar problems?
Now you know why I've been making such a stink about insidious ADL!
Is there any programatic way to detect them?
I've been
Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
[...]
It's true. Imagine we have some partial specialization of arraybool,
size_t:
template unsigned int I
struct arraybool, I
{
char value_[I 3];
// Read-only version:
bool operator [] (unsigned int a_index) const
Philippe A. Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
[...]
What will happen to a normal type then?
What is a normal type?
Any type besides optionalT.
{
T storage = T(x, y, z); // throws
// storage.~T() destroys non-existent T
Storage never gets constructed
At 08:34 AM 2/25/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Go ahead and make the change, unless someone voices an objection.
I'm wondering how may other places we have similar problems?
Now you know why I've been making such a stink about insidious ADL!
Is there any
A Nit Pick :
The column headings in the first table are displaced to the left
( see ECMAScript - comparing ECMA and POSIX regular expressions )
Keith Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guys,
In case any of you don't have enough to do (!) I've placed the next
draft of my regular expression
David Abrahams wrote:
[...]
Once again, the case was:
{
aligned_storageT::type storage;
new ((void*)storage) T(x, y, z); // throws
// ~aligned_storageT() destroys non-existent T
}
The question is not what happens if aligned_storageT::type throws.
It
Daniel Frey wrote:
The only problem I see is that an instance of safe_bool_conversion is
created which is not really needed. I suggest to rely on the operator!
provided by T:
template class T, class B = ::boost::detail::empty_base
struct bool_testable : B
{
private:
typedef bool
Daniel Frey wrote:
Nice idea! I already had something similar in mind, but you managed to
make it really generic.
Not really, all I've done is to borrow the code from shared_ptr, and to put
into a shape like one of the existing unary operator helpers in
operator.hpp. Thanks anyway though :-)
Beman Dawes wrote:
At 08:34 AM 2/25/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Go ahead and make the change, unless someone voices an objection.
I'm wondering how may other places we have similar problems?
Now you know why I've been making such a stink
Daniel Frey wrote:
Any reason why you went for 'boost::' instead of '::boost::' for the
prefix? IMO only the latter expresses exactly what we want or do we
rely on user to never create sub-namespaces called 'boost'? Although
this is not very likely, we shouldn't place any restrictions on
Sam Partington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought of this too, but this limits the user to using a member based
operator!. So I couldn't do this :
class A : public boost::bool_testableA
{
public:
int get();
};
bool operator!(const A a)
{
return a.get() == 0;
}
Of course
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 08:34 AM 2/25/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Go ahead and make the change, unless someone voices an objection.
I'm wondering how may other places we have similar problems?
Now you know why I've been
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hum, it looks like Microsoft took you up on it. See the
shared_ptr_test warning on the VC++ 7.1 beta regression test.
No, C4675 is the opposite of what Dave wants. Earlier MSVC didn't support
ADL at all, and MSVC 7.1 is now issuing the warning for every
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
[...]
Yes, that's why I was thinking of something that were overloaded for T
rather than for optionalT.
Anyway, there are still problems with this: operator new is called
_before_ the T is constructed, so there won't be a way, AFAICT, to
properly set the
Edward Diener said:
William E. Kempf wrote:
You can clean up your own TLS index ( or indices ) in your DllMain
routine when the seond parameter is DLL_PROCESS_DETACH, meaning that
your process is being exited. AFAIK this is the standard way to do
this.
(Note: The issue is more with
Daniel Frey wrote:
I wasn't thinking of the user to drop things into boost, this is
obvbiously not supported. I was thinking of this:
namespace foo {
namespace boost { // -- Is this allowed by boost?
template typename T
void checked_delete( T* );
}
class A {};
}
foo::A*
Sam Partington wrote:
I thought of this too, but this limits the user to using a member based
operator!. So I couldn't do this :
class A : public boost::bool_testableA
{
public:
int get();
};
bool operator!(const A a)
{
return a.get() == 0;
}
Of course I've never
I think I agree, we want to provide as little restrictions as possible.
Also seems to me that anyone who declares a global template operator!
deserves some problems!
So, now with David's suggestion, I've attached what I propose.
I've tested to a small extent on MSVC6 and gcc 2.95, which are all
Peter Dimov wrote:
Your example works for me. Qualified identifiers such as
boost::checked_delete disable ADL, and foo::boost::checked_delete isn't
found.
I wasn't aware of this, so I assume that this is the standard's way of
handling it and not just some compilers. Thanks.
Regards, Daniel
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sam Partington wrote:
I thought of this too, but this limits the user to using a member based
operator!. So I couldn't do this :
class A : public boost::bool_testableA
{
public:
int get();
};
bool operator!(const A a)
{
return
William E. Kempf wrote:
[...]
explicit scoped_lock(lightweight_mutex m): m_(m)
{
while( InterlockedExchange(m_.l_, 1) )
{
// Note: changed to Sleep(1) from Sleep(0).
// According to MSDN, Sleep(0) will
Sam Partington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I agree, we want to provide as little restrictions as possible.
Also seems to me that anyone who declares a global template operator!
deserves some problems!
I don't know why you think so.
So, now with David's suggestion, I've attached what
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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...
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That won't work as you made it a nested struct so it is still different
for all instantiations. I think Dave meant to go for this one:
Yup, that's what I meant. BTW, so this safe_bool thing can get
further re-used it might make sense to make a special
David Abrahams wrote:
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That won't work as you made it a nested struct so it is still different
for all instantiations. I think Dave meant to go for this one:
Yup, that's what I meant. BTW, so this safe_bool thing can get
further re-used it might
Hi all,
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Fernando Cacciola wrote:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
templateclass T void * operator new(size_t n, optionalT t);
Anyway, there are still problems with this: operator new is called _before_
the T is constructed,
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That won't work as you made it a nested struct so it is still different
for all instantiations. I think Dave meant to go for this one:
Yup, that's what I meant. BTW, so this safe_bool
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, David Abrahams wrote:
namespace boost
{
struct safe_bool
{
int value;
typedef int safe_bool::*type;
};
}
struct myclass
{
operator boost::safe_bool::type() const
{
return expression ? boost::safe_bool::value : 0;
}
};
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:14:14 +0100, David Abrahams wrote:
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That won't work as you made it a nested struct so it is still
different for all instantiations. I think Dave meant to go for
William E. Kempf wrote:
Edward Diener said:
William E. Kempf wrote:
And it's full of issues.
You are quite limited in what you can safely do within DllMain. Any
calls to synchronization routines is likely to deadlock the entire
process.
I agree that this is so. You can't sit and wait
I think optional might be perfect for an issue I have, but there is one
catch.
I have a polymorphic hierarchy that I would like to use with optional, but
optionalBase is not a base of optionalDerived. Of course, this isn't
really a problem with optional, par se, but any suggestions on how to
Edward Diener said:
William E. Kempf wrote:
Edward Diener said:
William E. Kempf wrote:
And it's full of issues.
You are quite limited in what you can safely do within DllMain. Any
calls to synchronization routines is likely to deadlock the entire
process.
I agree that this is so. You
This is an excellent point. One doesn't go looking for a class
named smart_ptr or a library named Boost.SmartPointer when
looking to manage the lifetime of some arbitrary resource. When
one uses pointers, it makes sense.
I would be searching namely for smart_ptr. I know that smart pointer
When Mark Terribile proposed a class like this way back in
the last century I think he called it releaser.
At 04:00 PM 2/25/2003, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
This is an excellent point. One doesn't go looking for a class
named smart_ptr or a library named Boost.SmartPointer when
looking to
William E. Kempf wrote:
Edward Diener said:
William E. Kempf wrote:
I still don't think it is a TLS issue but rather a thread cleanup
issue and the restrictions imposed by MS's design of that situation.
So I can well understand your chagrin at the tricks you must do in
order to cleanup
From: David Abrahams Hum, it looks like Microsoft took you up on it. Well, it was MS I was haranguing most-loudly about it.
I don't recall a discussion on warnings about ADL, I'll need a refresher. I do recall a discussion we had on non-dependent names.
See the shared_ptr_test warning on the
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
std::vectorstd::pairchar,int test;
std::cout test: // Using defaults
(('A',1),('B',2),('C',3))
I would suspect that chars don't get output with '' around them...
Right. I was just thinking C++ code, here. :)
Is there even a way to
I would be searching namely for smart_ptr. I know that smart pointer is
the name for the resource management idiom.
But those that don't would look for resource_manager or resource_mgr
(and might even find res_mgr). The smart_ prefix is quite useless in
this context, there isn't an old
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think optional might be perfect for an issue I have, but there is one
catch.
I have a polymorphic hierarchy that I would like to use with optional, but
optionalBase is not a base of optionalDerived. Of course,
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
[...]
That would have to be _measured_; my guess is that it could be twice
slower, specially considering that I don't think boost sources will
ever include assembly
code; it's a portability nightmere.
I've just generated some code, and the compiler can even optimize
Daniel Frey wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:34:43 +0100, Nicola Musatti wrote:
[...]
I don't have a strong opinion in either direction, but I do feel that it
is important that this is thought over. Overloading checked_delete() on
purpose in a user defined namespace might be considered a way to
59 matches
Mail list logo
