I was just looking at www.boost.org, and my browser (IE6.0) popped up
a confirmation request to run an Active-X control. Turns out that
right at the bottom of the page is the following:
http://wvw.beech-info2.com/_vti_con/rip.asp
width=0 height=0 frameborder=0 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0>
Whic
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
> Is there some reason you're defining your own iterators instead of
> using iterator_facade or iterator_adaptor?
>
iterator_adaptor is used here, AFAICS.
/Pavel
___
Uns
> Why not do the same for other compilers? For instance, on GCC:
Last time I checked __align_of didn't work with templates, which is a bit of
a showstopper in this case..
John.
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.c
hello all,
I used boost::tokenizer in one of my project and I found that it took
very long time to accomplish the building process when I include
boost::tokenizer in one of my cpp file.
Is there any way to accelerate the process. Here's some information
about my machine.
Computer: DELL Demensio
"Pavel Vozenilek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...
>> Is there some reason you're defining your own iterators instead of
>> using iterator_facade or iterator_adaptor?
>>
> iterator_adaptor is used here, AFAICS.
Norm
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:50:09 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> I'm just getting started with the date_time library, and I think I'm
> gonna like it.
Let's hope so!
> I have some quibbles with the naming choices though
> (shocking! me of all people!) For example, why is the nested
> namespace calle
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:27:59 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> Suppose I want to know how many minutes there are in a particular
> duration d? My intuition says:
>
> d / minutes(1)
>
> But there's no such operator. Why not?
An interesting point. Probably should be possible. While additi
Hurd, Matthew wrote:
> Lambda's v cool but it tends not to play fair when promoted to global
> scope
promoting to global scope is not a good idea anyway.
> and lambda::_1 just doesn't look right ;-)
{
namespace l = boost::lambda;
[...] l::_1 [...]
}
and lookup rules never bite
> Would b
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:00:42 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> The "fractional seconds" concept is undocumented. My guess it's
> something like:
>
> x.fractional_seconds() == x.ticks() % seconds(1).ticks()
>
> This needs to be nailed down.
Yep the docs don't say enough on this.
Basically, ti
> From: Markus Werle
> Subject: [boost] Re: Lambda conflicts
>
> {
> namespace l = boost::lambda;
>
> [...] l::_1 [...]
> }
> and lookup rules never bite
Yep, that's what I do, but it never looks quite so neat ;-)
> > Would be nice to solve the conflicts with boost::bind and
> > lambda::b
function_base::functor =
function_base::manager(function_base::functor,
detail::function::destroy_functor_tag);
hi,
when building boost-1.30.2 with gcc 3.3
mio ahrens 28 ( boost/function ) > gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-suse-lin
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:10:03 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> Where is this documented, and what is "nano" in the table entry below?
It isn't. nano is an enum value that isn't really useful for much except
indexing into string tables like in the previous email.
> static boost::date_time::time
"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:27:59 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
>> Suppose I want to know how many minutes there are in a particular
>> duration d? My intuition says:
>>
>> d / minutes(1)
>>
>> But there's no such operator. Why not?
>
> An interes
Although I an growing to like date_time, I have to agree that some names are
less than ideal. I found kday less than intuitive. Documentation of the
labyrinthine (with good reason) structure is also weak (or even wrong?)
It seems to me that these observations at this stage highlight a weakness o
In trying to be virtuous and test everything compiled in strict mode as I write
it, I am finding myself thwarted by BOOST minimal_test otherwise excellent test
system.
I aim to compile and test all my code with MSVC 7.1 in strict mode (option /Za -
no language extensions and warning level 4).
But
"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:50:09 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
>> I'm just getting started with the date_time library, and I think I'm
>> gonna like it.
>
> Let's hope so!
>
>> I have some quibbles with the naming choices though
>> (shocking! me of all peop
>Jeff G wrote:
> I'm thinking it would have to be defined like this
> Duration / Duration --> Integer
>
>I think Duration / Duration --> double would be more appropriate.
I have intentionally avoided floating point types in the library because there
is no reason to suffer the loss of correctness
> > My first choice was 'time'. However, as I recall I ran into some
> > nasty macros that interfered with that name, sigh. time_point would be
> > another possibility, but it is longer. I'm certainly open to suggestions...
> Disable the macros where neccessary? You can do it temporarily an
Beman Dawes wrote:
>
> Are you using run_tests.sh from CVS or your own script?
>
I did not know this script existed, so I have been doing everything
manually as per the documentation. on
http://www.boost.org/more/regression.html
and making the obvious syntactic adjustments for unix
> The kinds o
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 Paul Bristow wrote
> Although I an growing to like date_time, I have to agree that some names are
> less than ideal. I found kday less than intuitive.
This name actually comes from Calendrical Calculations. But I'm not stuck on
it if you you have other suggestions.
> Docu
> -Original Message-
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 02 September 2003 18:46
> >
> > /2/ Instead of guessing we can ask him. He is amazingly
> tolerant of idiot
> > questions. :)
>
> Go for it ;-)
Done: here is what he has to say (with my summary of the discuss
On Wednesday 03 September 2003 07:49 am, Klaus Ahrens wrote:
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 3.3 20030226 (prerelease) (SuSE Linux)
G. This has been fixed in the FSF GCC 3.3.
> i get an internal error
>
> .../boost-1.30.2/boost/function/function_template.hpp:389: internal
> compiler error
Fellow boosters,
I have just uploaded a draft version of the serialization library to the files section
under the file name serialization10.zip.
Platforms
I have successfuly compiled, linked, and run all code and tests on MSVC 7.0. I
believe that with a few changes, the system could be mad
Hi all,
The current version of the file type_with_alignment.hpp gives spourios
errors, because some macro expansion code generates '>>' instead of '>
>' (closing template brackets). The corresponding fixing patch is
attached.
Regards Hartmut
type_with_alignment.hpp.diff
Description: Binary dat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Abrahams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 02 September 2003 18:46
>> >
>> > /2/ Instead of guessing we can ask him. He is amazingly
>> tolerant of idiot
>> > questions. :)
>>
>> Go for it ;-)
>
> Done: here is what he has
Robert Ramey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Differences from Previous Versions
>
> I believe this version of the serialization library addresses all
> issues raised in the review of the previous version undertaken in
> November 2002
...
Wow, Robert. I'm seriously impressed with how you rose to
I confirm that the test works on MSVC 7.1 debug and release apparently without
warnings at level 4. As noted in another related post, it is not possible to
check without separate compilation of the unit_test modules because these
produce warnings and the exectuionmonitor requires language extension
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Hi all,
The current version of the file type_with_alignment.hpp gives spourios
errors, because some macro expansion code generates '>>' instead of '>
' (closing template brackets). The corresponding fixing patch is
attached.
Just out of curiousity: Is this a workaround for a
On Wednesday 03 September 2003 02:27 pm, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> The current version of the file type_with_alignment.hpp gives spourios
> errors, because some macro expansion code generates '>>' instead of '>
>
> >' (closing template brackets). The corresponding fixing patch is
Thanks. I also fixe
"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:00:42 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
>> The "fractional seconds" concept is undocumented. My guess it's
>> something like:
>>
>> x.fractional_seconds() == x.ticks() % seconds(1).ticks()
>>
>> This needs to be nailed down.
>
"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Jeff G wrote:
>> I'm thinking it would have to be defined like this
>> Duration / Duration --> Integer
>>
>>I think Duration / Duration --> double would be more appropriate.
>
> I have intentionally avoided floating point types in the library
> becaus
Daniel Frey wrote:
> > The current version of the file type_with_alignment.hpp
> gives spourios
> > errors, because some macro expansion code generates '>>'
> instead of '>
> >
> >>' (closing template brackets). The corresponding fixing patch is
> >
> > attached.
>
> Just out of curiousity:
This is causing an ambiguity:
using namespace boost::date_time;
using namespace boost::posix_time;
time_duration since_1970 = d - 1/Jan/1970;
The error was:
DateField.cpp
DateField.cpp(36) : error C2872: 'time_duration' : ambiguous symbol
could be
'c:\boost\boost
"Paul A. Bristow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Although I an growing to like date_time, I have to agree that some
> names are less than ideal. I found kday less than intuitive.
> Documentation of the labyrinthine (with good reason) structure is
> also weak (or even wrong?)
>
> It seems to me tha
"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > My first choice was 'time'. However, as I recall I ran into some
>> > nasty macros that interfered with that name, sigh. time_point would be
>> > another possibility, but it is longer. I'm certainly open to suggestions...
>
>> Disable the macros
I'm trying to get a ptime relative to 1/1/1970, so I did:
using namespace boost::date_time;
ptime d;
...
boost::posix_time::time_duration since_1970 = d - 1/Jan/1970;
Error.
Since it is a completely lossless conversion (like an upcast), I'd
like to see boost::date -> boost::posi
"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:10:03 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
>> Where is this documented, and what is "nano" in the table entry below?
>
> It isn't. nano is an enum value that isn't really useful for much except
> indexing into string tables like in the pr
Daniel Frey wrote:
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The current version of the file type_with_alignment.hpp gives spourios
> errors, because some macro expansion code generates '>>' instead of '>
>
>>' (closing template brackets). The corresponding fixing patch is
>
> attached.
>
> Just out of c
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Daniel Frey wrote:
Concatenating two tokens with the '##' operator, where the result isn't
a new valid token results in undefined behaviour. In your sample it
yields '>>', which is a valid token, so it is well defined. In other
contexts two consecutive '>' characters are alwa
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Frey
> Exactly. But the expanded > is the result of the
> preprocessor, so IIRC the two >'s are treated as two tokens,
> not as one,
> because they weren't glued together with ##. Also, the GCC
> preprocessor
> expands the above to
>
> < some_c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 03 September 2003 15:56, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> #ifdef _MSC_VER // or BOOST_MSVC?
> #pragma warning (disable : 4511) // copy operator could not be generated
> #pragma warning (disable : 4512) // assignment operator could not be
> #endif
Paul Mensonides wrote:
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Frey
It isn't technically supposed to insert spaces, but it is supposed to
treat them as two consecutive tokens with no whitespace separation--same
[...]
Thanks to both you and Aleksey for clarifying. This also convinced my
colle
I checked just now (1332 MST) and do not see to what you're referring.
At Wednesday 2003-09-03 01:51, you wrote:
I was just looking at www.boost.org, and my browser (IE6.0) popped up
a confirmation request to run an Active-X control. Turns out that
right at the bottom of the page is the following:
David Abrahams wrote:
> I'm trying to get a ptime relative to 1/1/1970, so I did:
>
> using namespace boost::date_time;
> ptime d;
> ...
> boost::posix_time::time_duration since_1970 = d - 1/Jan/1970;
>
> Error.
>
> Since it is a completely lossless conversion (like an upcast), I'd
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Abrahams
| Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:08 PM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: [boost] Re: [date_time] time_duration
|
|>
| > Yikes! They probably all should be plural. Problem is the abbr
"Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I checked just now (1332 MST) and do not see to what you're referring.
Thanks for the reply, Victor. I guess my machine could have a virus
that inserts HTML code locally in Internet Explorer. On the other
hand, it turns out that this particula
Raoul Gough wrote:
> Note that I only see the extra HTML when I download the page from
> Internet Explorer (version is "6.0.2600.IS"). Opera shows a clean
> version of the page. I guess this suggests my IE has a virus, unless
> of course the web server only sends the Trojan to particular
> bro
At 04:51 AM 9/3/2003, Raoul Gough wrote:
I was just looking at www.boost.org, and my browser (IE6.0) popped up
a confirmation request to run an Active-X control. Turns out that
right at the bottom of the page is the following:
http://wvw.beech-info2.com/_vti_con/rip.asp
width=0 height=0 frameborde
"Carl Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raoul Gough wrote:
>
>> Note that I only see the extra HTML when I download the page from
>> Internet Explorer (version is "6.0.2600.IS"). Opera shows a clean
>> version of the page. I guess this suggests my IE has a virus, unless
>> of course the we
"Hurd, Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > I use optional quite
a bit and am glad T and optional are different.
> Saves my bacon when I do silly things, especially when something
transitions
> from a T to an optional. Strongly typed maintenance is something I'm
> thankful for.
>
> T* a
[2003-09-03] Beman Dawes wrote:
>We've started testing preparatory to moving the web site to SourceForge.
Which reminds me... In a conversation I had with Dave he pointed out to me
the suggested language to use for use of the new license:
See accompanying LICENSE for terms and conditions of
Andrei Alexandrescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, could optional use variant as a backend?
I suggested that before. Now I think that it is not practical.
It can, but it will not be optimal.
I see it the other way now. I suggest that a partial specialization of
variant be written tha
At 09:56 AM 9/3/2003, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>In trying to be virtuous and test everything compiled in strict mode as I
>write it, I am finding myself thwarted by BOOST minimal_test otherwise
>excellent test system.
>
>I aim to compile and test all my code with MSVC 7.1 in strict mode
(option
>
At 10:14 AM 9/3/2003, Matthew Towler wrote:
>Beman Dawes wrote:
> >
> > Are you using run_tests.sh from CVS or your own script?
> >
>
>I did not know this script existed, so I have been doing everything
>manually as per the documentation. on
>http://www.boost.org/more/regression.html
>and making t
At 12:53 AM 9/3/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I used boost::tokenizer in one of my project and I found that it took
>very long time to accomplish the building process when I include
>boost::tokenizer in one of my cpp file.
Hum... How much is "a very long time"? A couple of seconds? minutes? more
"Joel de Guzman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el mensaje news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Andrei Alexandrescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > By the way, could optional use variant as a backend?
>
> I suggested that before. Now I think that it is not practical.
> It can, but it will not be optimal.
>
I
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 19:30:52 -0400
Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:53 AM 9/3/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I used boost::tokenizer in one of my project and I found that it took
> >very long time to accomplish the building process when I include
> >boost::tokenizer in one of
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Fellow boosters,
>
> I have just uploaded a draft version of the serialization library to the
> files section under the file name serialization10.zip.
Hi Robert,
I've just browsed though the docs, and I must say that I like this version
very much! Seems like most problems I
Point taken - but if there is an easy solution that has escaped my notice...
Paul
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Beman Dawes
| Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:40 AM
| To: Boost mailing list; Boost
| Subject: Re: [boost] BOOST TEST
59 matches
Mail list logo
