Hi!
In one of Herb Sutters articles I saw that
after deleting a pointer (a pimpl) he assigns 0 afterwards
which seems to me like a good idea.
(see e.g. http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/028.htm or http://tinyurl.com/bq8o)
Maybe there is a good reason (efficiency?)
why checked_delete omits this extra step.
> Your patch does not fix the problem at all.
Ah, I see I got the Intel version check backwards, fixed (hopefully!)
> In my opinion, it can even
> break some working configurations. I would rather use this conditional
> expression:
>
> # if !(defined(_GLOBAL_USING) && (_GLOBAL_USING+0 > 0 || _C
Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2003, John Maddock wrote:
>
>>> One of the first things the configuration header does is:
>>>
>>> #if !(defined(_GLOBAL_USING) && (_GLOBAL_USING+0 > 0)) &&
>>> !defined(_STD) # define BOOST_NO_STDC_NAMESPACE
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> However, during comp
"Vladimir Prus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ???/ ? ?:
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Changed, thanks! BTW, it's more convenient if you send changes as unified
> diff. They convey the same information as you've given above but are also
> directly applicable. Of course, for this chang
Markus:
>In one of Herb Sutters articles I saw that
>after deleting a pointer (a pimpl) he assigns 0 afterwards
>which seems to me like a good idea.
>(see e.g. http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/028.htm or http://tinyurl.com/bq8o)
>
>Maybe there is a good reason (efficiency?)
>why checked_delete omits this
Markus Werle wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In one of Herb Sutters articles I saw that
> after deleting a pointer (a pimpl) he assigns 0 afterwards
> which seems to me like a good idea.
> (see e.g. http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/028.htm or http://tinyurl.com/bq8o)
>
> Maybe there is a good reason (efficiency?)
> why
On Wed, 14 May 2003, John Maddock wrote:
> > Your patch does not fix the problem at all.
>
> Ah, I see I got the Intel version check backwards, fixed (hopefully!)
Yes, this time the conditional is correct. Unfortunately, this patch is
still not good: __ICL is not defined so it doesn't work. My ve
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> > Your patch does not fix the problem at all. In my opinion, it can even
> > break some working configurations. I would rather use this
> > conditional expression:
> >
> > # if !(defined(_GLOBAL_USING) && (_GLOBAL_USING+0 >
>Does defining
>BOOST_REGEX_NO_EXTERNAL_TEMPLATES fix the issue? If it does let me know,
Indeed, it works for the release build.
Have not got to the point of building the regression tests yet, but at least the
release library builds which is good enough for now.
The debug build still fails for w
Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
Yes, this time the conditional is correct. Unfortunately, this patch is
still not good: __ICL is not defined so it doesn't work. My version of the
compiler (the standard version available on Intel's website) does not
define __ICL, but only __ICC and __INTEL_COMPILER. So
On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:39:09 +0200, Markus Werle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>In one of Herb Sutters articles I saw that
>after deleting a pointer (a pimpl) he assigns 0 afterwards
>which seems to me like a good idea.
>(see e.g. http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/028.htm or http://tinyurl.com/bq8o)
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does defining
BOOST_REGEX_NO_EXTERNAL_TEMPLATES fix the issue? If it does let me know,
Indeed, it works for the release build.
Have not got to the point of building the regression tests yet, but at least the
release library builds which is good enough for now.
The debug
I could use some help with bind syntax. I have a container:
Class MyClass
{
public:
void foo(void);
}
Std::map >
I would like to construct a for_each loop with calls to foo for every
pointer to MyClass in the map. Help greatly appreciated.
The best graph library documentation is in
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0201729148
If you are going to really use the library you need to get the book.
-Gary-
-Original Message-
From: Eric Fowler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 10:30 PM
To: Boost mailing list
Sub
Hi everyone,
is anyone considering the addition of an arbitrary precision number library?
Lucas/
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Lucas Galfaso wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> is anyone considering the addition of an arbitrary precision number library?
In short, yes.
Several C++ implementations of arbitrary magnitude integers (bignums or
bigints) are laying around Boost, but none have been proposed for revie
Terence Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could use some help with bind syntax. I have a container:
>
> Class MyClass
> {
> public:
> void foo(void);
> }
>
> Std::map >
>
> I would like to construct a for_each loop with calls to foo for every
> pointer to MyClass in the map. Help greatly appre
On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 10:59 AM, Hubert Holin wrote:
I believe, and hope, I got something wrong.
Didn't I warn you about taking the approach you describe below? I
think it was over a year ago (but I changed computers so I can't check
at the moment).
Updating the special functi
18 matches
Mail list logo
