Christo Fogelberg wrote:
I'm quite new to boost, and wondering how best to install it under linux
with GCC. I have no problem getting it to compile and run, but with all
the .a files hidden away in huge directory trees, and the include files
hidden several layers deep, I'm wondering what people ha
It should also be possible, if the regression engine outputs an XML table of
information, to support all of these different versions via different XSLT
code (simplified via a parameter to the stylesheet).
e.g.
It is then possible to get the XSLT code to generate statistics (number
Edward Diener wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hardcore POSIX folks don't really "think C++", unfortunately. The only
> > way to get it done is to deliver POSIX threading API implementation
> > "on
> > top" of Boost.Threads to them, I think. Well, this would also mean a
> > whole bunch of
Pavol,
>> > L1: option level ( string and boost::any oriented, defined by
>> > option_description ) L2: typed-paramter level ( represented by
>> > po::parameter function )
>> >
[...]
>> I completely agree. Basically, this means splitting the current
>> "validator" in two, as your describe above.
At 05:04 AM 5/26/2003, Toon Knapen wrote:
>The number of warnings also provides valuable information but indeed it's
>not as important as the Pass/Fail categories so this needs to be
>communicated to the viewers as well. But how ?
>
>I support the suggestion of Greg indicating something like:
>Pas
Hi everybody,
I'm quite new to boost, and wondering how best to install it under linux
with GCC. I have no problem getting it to compile and run, but with all
the .a files hidden away in huge directory trees, and the include files
hidden several layers deep, I'm wondering what people have done to
On Friday 23 May 2003 18:15, Beman Dawes wrote:
> Hopefully other regression testers will supply appropriate comment files
> for their setups.
I've also added this to the very handy run_tests.sh script of Rene (is that OK Rene ?)
toon
___
Unsubscribe &
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:07:06PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Pavol Droba wrote:
>
> > Ok, I think, I see now, where the point is.
> >
> > The framework is separated into two layers.
> >
> > L1: option level ( string and boost::any oriented, defined by
> > option_description ) L2: typed-para
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Hardcore POSIX folks don't really "think C++", unfortunately. The only
> way to get it done is to deliver POSIX threading API implementation
> "on
> top" of Boost.Threads to them, I think. Well, this would also mean a
> whole bunch of extensions to the current POSIX thre
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> "William E. Kempf" wrote:
> [...]
> > >> How about moving this discussion to c.p.t.?
> > >
> > > Well, just in case...
> >
> > Thanks... I currently can't access c.p.t. in any reasonable manner. I'm
> > working to rectify this,
>
> http://news.cis.dfn.de might hel
Pavol Droba wrote:
> Ok, I think, I see now, where the point is.
>
> The framework is separated into two layers.
>
> L1: option level ( string and boost::any oriented, defined by
> option_description ) L2: typed-paramter level ( represented by
> po::parameter function )
>
> L2 should work abov
Hi Gennadiy,
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> This is not a review of the supplied library. I am not gonna discuss
> docs
> even though they are scarce. I almost don't mention implementation/code/
> testing. I just want to express my opinion on design of the library.
Thanks for taking the time to
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:41:08AM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Pavol Droba wrote:
>
> >> The only problem with current 'validator' is that it should validate
> >> *string* and return the value. So, the example given by Tanton:
> >>
> >>_1 >= 1 && _1 <= 9)
> >>
> >> would not really work --
On Sunday 25 May 2003 23:18, Beman Dawes wrote:
> I think that Greg Comeau has a good point in his email below - reporting
> separate pass / warn / fail statistics in the regression summary can be
> misleading to naive readers.
>
> On the other hand, we certainly want to continue to report warni
On Sun, 25 May 2003, Beman Dawes wrote:
> I think that Greg Comeau has a good point in his email below - reporting
> separate pass / warn / fail statistics in the regression summary can be
> misleading to naive readers.
(What are naive readers trying to do with Boost? :-) )
I think this column i
Hi,
This is not a review of the supplied library. I am not gonna discuss docs
even though they are scarce. I almost don't mention implementation/code/
testing. I just want to express my opinion on design of the library.
Following list is not ordered by importance nor any other order. It just
16 matches
Mail list logo
