From: Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terje Slettebø wrote:
From: Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave Gomboc wrote:
So then reverse resource_manager and get managed_resource, or
just managed.
Why not just resource? Management is implied anyway; that's the
reason for the
Terje Slettebø wrote:
You don't need to know the template parameters to know that it
is a *pair*. That's the big difference. The template parameter is an
abstract concept. Detached from the parameters, it is still a pair.
The same does
not
hold for managedT. What is managed? It is not even
Hello,
I've a problem reading graph from the dot format. Suppose I have
digraph gengraph {
source=1
sink=12
_ - 1;
_ [label=,shape=plaintext];
12 [shape=doublecircle];
1 - 2 [label=0];
1 - 3 [label=0];
the graph is
My Compiler is VC++ 6.0.
Could you test with this compiler?
Thanks in advance.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Abrahams
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:54 PM
To: Boost mailing list
Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.python] Help.
I decided that I needed a workable units library, so I wrote one. It
allows for weakly typed dimensioned quantities (so a length divided by
a time is automatically converted to a velocity). It also allows
users to use strong typeing for quantities of the same dimension which
shouldn't be
Somewhere in the E.U., le 28/02/2003
Bonjour
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
Is there an integer-based complex number class in existence in boost?
If it supports and , then it could be used in the fixed point class
just as naturally as an
Kim Chang Han [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My Compiler is VC++ 6.0.
Could you test with this compiler?
Thanks in advance.
I did (with service pack 5 installed). The directory I used is enclosed.
embed.zip
Description: Zip archive
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Atkinson
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:23 AM
To: Boost mailing list
Subject: RE: [boost] Is there any Interest in a Fixed Point Library?
Why on earth didn't the language include fixed point
Martin Wille wrote:
Otherwise, I completely agree with Joel's reasoning that
resource is the best name.
I have mulled it over for a while, and tried to imagine myself coming at
the issue for the first time, as someone learning C++ rather than
learning/devising new tricks.
In this case, I find
I feel like the ball boy at Wimbledon here,
interfering in a rare old ding-dong of the match of the week
de Guzman v. Slettebø
who seem to be about 40 all so far?
As someone who grew up happily on pointerless language, I don't automatically
think resource when I read pointer or ptr.
How about
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
[...]
BTW implicit cast to reference types are not implicit under GCC,
they have to be called explicitly.
Yes, this is the conformant behaviour AFAIK
But it will work if the cast operator is not a member template. Maybe
template cast to reference type should be
Alisdair Meredith wrote:
Martin Wille wrote:
Otherwise, I completely agree with Joel's reasoning that
resource is the best name.
I have mulled it over for a while, and tried to imagine myself coming
at the issue for the first time, as someone learning C++ rather than
learning/devising new
Dave Gomboc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So then reverse resource_manager and get managed_resource, or just
managed.
Why not just resource? Management is implied anyway; that's the
reason for the existence of the class.
*laugh* I was thinking exactly the opposite. To me, the resource
Hubert Holin wrote:
You can always use ::std::complexint, for instance, but the
result is implementation dependant, as per the standard, and would not
be much interesting as it stands.
Heck, I'm pretty sure you can use ::std::basic_stringfloat, with the
same limitations
--
At 03:46 AM 2/28/2003, Joel de Guzman wrote:
Terje Slettebø wrote:
You don't need to know the template parameters to know that it
is a *pair*. That's the big difference. The template parameter is an
abstract concept. Detached from the parameters, it is still a pair.
The same does
not
hold
Andreas Huber wrote:
Aleksey just did a big round of renaming before the first official
release of MPL (including changes like int_c - int_, and placeholder
- placeholders); I believe that placeholder.hpp is obsolete and
should have been removed from CVS. In this case we could keep it for
David Abrahams wrote:
Dave Gomboc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So then reverse resource_manager and get managed_resource, or
just managed.
Why not just resource? Management is implied anyway; that's the
reason for the existence of the class.
*laugh* I was thinking exactly the opposite.
Peter Dimov wrote:
It depends on the choice of template parameters, of course. If you go the PB
way, resource is definitely a contender:
This is definitely the direction I was thinking. Otherwise, we get
shared_resource, scoped_resource, movable_resource, etc and we start
wanting an
Alisdair Meredith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Dimov wrote:
It depends on the choice of template parameters, of course. If you go the PB
way, resource is definitely a contender:
This is definitely the direction I was thinking. Otherwise, we get
shared_resource, scoped_resource,
1. resource
Let me repeat myself: resource_manager is never(almost) the RESOURCE
itself. It only managing code. This name would be really misleading. Also
managed part is not assumed. FILE is the resource but it is not managed.
2. managed
Name will be very unclear in most cases, cause the name
At 09:16 AM 2/28/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Alisdair Meredith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Dimov wrote:
It depends on the choice of template parameters, of course. If you go the PB
way, resource is definitely a contender:
This is definitely the direction I was thinking. Otherwise, we
Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
[... 1-6 ...]
So. Do we still want to fight about best name for non existent component?
We don't. The BEST name (number 7 -- what else would you expect from such
magic number) is:
wrap/wrapper
of course. ;-)
regards,
alexander.
On Friday 28 February 2003 09:47 am, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
So. Do we still want to fight about best name for non existent component?
What about raii? Maybe too specific but I don't recall an example from the
discussions that doesn't follow the principle.
--
Alkis
From: Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
managerwidget
Manager of widget. It's kind of implied that what is managed is the
resource itself, even though resource doesn't say anywhere. This is
similar to that you think it's implied that resourcewidget means it
manages the resource, even
wrap/wrapper
This is another name for the proxy. And It has the same problem - too
generic.
Gennadiy.
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
wrap/wrapper
This is another name for the proxy.
Nah, proxy is wrapper's implementation detail. ;-)
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/wrapper.pdf
regards,
alexander.
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
Robert Allan Schwartz wrote:
The attached document was submitted for publication to C/C++ Users Journal
today, but I thought it might be worth submitting to Boost as well.
Perhaps my spelling class template could be folded into type_traits?
[code snipped]
Looks interesting, but I'm not sure if
Some time ago, when we were first discussing smart_ptr, it was mentioned
here that someone had identified 36 different styles of smart pointers.
Could anyone here point me to that article?
--
Truth,
James Curran
www.noveltheory.com (personal)
www.njtheater.com (professional)
Perhaps my spelling class template could be folded into type_traits?
[code snipped]
Looks interesting, but I'm not sure if it's such a huge advantage over:
template typename T
void foo(T)
{
cout T is typeid(T).name() endl;
}
The resulting string of your method is more
This is a repost of my Lock Classes. Hopefully this time I will get some
constructive feedback. These classes have the following features.
1) The ability to acquire a lock and release it when the object
goes out of scope effectively implemented the Monitor concept.
2) Avoid the need
Hi Aleksey
For warning levels = 2 the attached program produces the given warning.
AFAICT, the code in advance.hpp should be correct, so this has low priority.
However, to avoid the warning, the if_ expression should probably be
replaced with its apply_if equivalent.
Thanks,
Andreas
At 05:18 PM 2/28/2003, James Curran wrote:
Some time ago, when we were first discussing smart_ptr, it was
mentioned here that someone had identified 36 different styles of
smart pointers.
Could anyone here point me to that article?
That may have been a reference to a feature model I
Kevin,
I started on this must be close to a year ago, and I got wrapped up with
other stuff and never got back to it.
A couple of interesting design ideas. Someone (sorry I forget who) pointed
me towards a great pdf file describing a fixed point arithmetic enhancement
for embedded compilers.
Found it. A long read, but interesting.
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n972.pdf.
To give credit where it is due, Bill Seymour sent me the URL back in August
of last year. (Guess is was only 6 months ago I was doing this.)
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Nutt [EMAIL
Robert Allan Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe a standardized (within Boost), portable, and *readable* text
representation of T makes my proposal better than typeid().
I think if readability is the main criterion we'd do much better to
invest in decoding the typeids generated by
Robert Allan Schwartz wrote:
Perhaps my spelling class template could be folded into type_traits?
[code snipped]
Looks interesting, but I'm not sure if it's such a huge advantage over:
template typename T
void foo(T)
{
cout T is typeid(T).name() endl;
}
The resulting string of your
36 matches
Mail list logo
