Thanks for all these nuggets of info on 64-bit.
I find it hard enough to keep 32 bits in order ;-)
(Old computers/programmers never die, they just lose control of their bits?)
Paul
PS Editing
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio .NET\Vc7\VCWizards\1033\common.js
CLTool.War
Thomas Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Anthony Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OTOH, the situations I am thinking of require that
> > the tuple of containers is
> > really treated as a container of tuples, complete
> > with the ability to update
> > the source containers by writi
(long post)
After some thought, I'll broaden my response by (kind of) developing an
exception use strategy that gives me what I want and addresses (a
little) the "user messages vs debugging" question.
Let's start with a "use-case" model of a system (system might be an
application, server, libra
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:51:35 -0500, Jan Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Gennaro Prota wrote:
>> But there are more important points I think; first of all this: if all
>> I can see "from the outside" is whether v_== minus [note: this is
>> 'plus' in the original code] why keeping three states i
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Unless I'm missing something, I believe that my
> > original rough intuition was ok. Given my
> combining
> > iterator, it seems very easy to write your tuple
> > iterator by providing a simple generic
> > "reference-tuple-
Thomas Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see now that with your tuple iterator, you are
> aiming much higher than I previously thought. Just
> like boost's transform iterators, my combining
> iterators are always and necessarily input iterators.
> (That's not really going to change under the n
> I am writing a multithreaded Apache log parser that uses the Boost
> 1_29_0 regex split function to separate elements in the entry. Each
> thread parses a separate log file. The code seems to be working
> correctly on a 1-CPU system, but when I use a 14-CPU Sun server, I
> see massive locking (LC
I just installed boost_1_30_0 and updated to glibc-2.3.2 on my RH8.0 Linux
box. Now I have problems to create a static link of my executable.
I'm wondering what is the correct link procedure.
g++ -Wall -I ../../src/fixed -I ../../src/float -O3 -ffast-math
-fstrict-aliasing -m3dnow -ggdb -marc
Neal D. Becker wrote:
> I just installed boost_1_30_0 and updated to glibc-2.3.2 on my RH8.0
> Linux box. Now I have problems to create a static link of my
> executable.
>
> I'm wondering what is the correct link procedure.
>
> g++ -Wall -I ../../src/fixed -I ../../src/float -O3 -ffast-math
> -fs
Terje Slettebø wrote:
>
> >From: "Jason House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I had 2 thoughts today...
> >
> > 1. Is it at all useful/possible to use a lambda-like notation?
>
> In what way? Could you have given a rough syntax-example?
>
> An example in BLL is:
>
> std::for_each(v.begin(), v.end
"Chris Trengove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A question for David Abrahams (or anyone else who might have a bright idea).
>
> I have resolved quite a few of the issues involved in porting Boost.Python
> to Borland, but here is one particularly nasty problem. In
> member_function_cast.hpp you hav
Gennaro Prota wrote:
But there are more important points I think; first of all this: if all
I can see "from the outside" is whether v_== minus [note: this is
'plus' in the original code] why keeping three states internally?
because i see no reason why they should be needed.
Sigh. You do keep them!
Anthony Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I see now that with your tuple iterator, you are
> > aiming much higher than I previously thought. Just
> > like boost's transform iterators, my combining
> > iterators are always and necessarily input ite
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:28:56 -0500, Jan Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Gennaro Prota wrote:
>> The point is that your operator bool is a loss
>> of information. Ever heard of lexicographical_compare_3way?
>
>yes, but never used so far. but the non_3way lexicographic compare
>algorithm has the
For boost 1_29 the Linux regression logs were preserved. For boost 1_30
we have the logs for many more platforms. However, this means that
almost half the logs on the testing page are never going to be updated
and just sit there growing 'older'.
Is it possible to create separate pages for regres
David Abrahams wrote:
3) I'd like to see a general solution for this problem using real
(late-bound) function objects as well, if you know what I mean. This would
be a lot harder, though, so maybe it should be put on a wish-list. Have you
given any thought to this approach?
return compare.les
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
This really neat, and useful, but I really don't like either name.
Two suggestions:
comparisons - because the whole point is more than one compare.
or
compair - because one is comparing pairs. (Do I hear you groan? Not punny?)
But perhaps the dreadfulness will make is mo
Sorry, I'm refering tree_node<>::value.id().to_long(). The token_node_d
directive in the code below creates these nodes, and stores the
associated rule id in them. The rule id being stored changed when I
upgraded to the latest version of Spirit. Please reread my message
below with this context i
[2003-03-28] Alisdair Meredith wrote:
>For boost 1_29 the Linux regression logs were preserved. For boost 1_30
>we have the logs for many more platforms. However, this means that
>almost half the logs on the testing page are never going to be updated
>and just sit there growing 'older'.
>
>Is it
Hi Jon,
Ok. I'll ask the tree-people (Dan and Hartmut :-)
This is their domain...
BTW... Please post follow ups to
Spirit-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-general
Thanks!
--
Joel de Guzman
joel at boost-consulting.com
http://www.boost
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You can get an idea of the intended semantics of this dance by looking
> at libs/python/test/member_function_cast.cpp. The idea is that if f
> is a member function, and its class is a base class of Target, it
> will be
At 04:10 PM 3/28/2003, Rene Rivera wrote:
>[2003-03-28] Alisdair Meredith wrote:
>
>>For boost 1_29 the Linux regression logs were preserved. For boost 1_30
>>we have the logs for many more platforms. However, this means that
>>almost half the logs on the testing page are never going to be update
> I am writing a multithreaded Apache log parser that uses the Boost
1_29_0 regex split function to separate elements in the entry. Each
thread parses a separate log file. The code seems to be working
correctly on a 1-CPU system, but when I use a 14-CPU Sun server, I
see massive locking (LCK c
Does the MPL library have anything like the Loki::Int2Type template? I
know that identity can be used like Loki::Type2Type.
Joe Gottman
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>From: "Jason House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Terje Slettebø wrote:
> >
> > >From: "Jason House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > 1. Is it at all useful/possible to use a lambda-like notation?
> >
> Thinking about it more, I don't know how doable it is for the first 3
> parameters...
>
> But what about:
"Chris Trengove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks. It certainly helps to have a clearer understanding of what is going
> on here. I'll see if I can come up with a "simpler" BCC-specific approach.
Please see if you can come up with a simpler non-specific approach
which might break cwpro7. Tha
"Joe Gottman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Does the MPL library have anything like the Loki::Int2Type template? I
> know that identity can be used like Loki::Type2Type.
int_
or
long_
or
integral_c
might suit your needs.
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
Gennaro Prota wrote:
Ok. This is my last post in this thread. Let me just add that your
conversion function to bool, together with the default constructor you
provide, lets the user take the "result of the comparison" without
actually doing any call to operator().
yes. but i cant see a problem with
> I am writing a multithreaded Apache log parser that uses the Boost
1_29_0 regex split function to separate elements in the entry. Each
thread parses a separate log file. The code seems to be working
correctly on a 1-CPU system, but when I use a 14-CPU Sun server, I
see massive locking (LCK c
29 matches
Mail list logo
