I think scoped_ptr needs to remain as it is. If we need this
functionality a new scoped_deallocator may be the way to go.
On Thursday, Apr 3, 2003, at 11:04 Europe/London, Peter Dimov wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
We find ourselves in want of a custom deallocator for scoped_ptr, but
no such t
EXCEPT.DOC
Description: MS-Word document
On Friday, Mar 21, 2003, at 11:51 America/Denver, Gennaro Prota wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:06:45 -0700, Greg Colvin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The idea of the why() member was to preserve context when one
exception
gets caught and a differe
ar 21, 2003, at 09:24 America/Denver, Alisdair Meredith
wrote:
Greg Colvin wrote:
std::exception used to have a why() member that returned the list of
exceptions leading to the one caught. Is that part of what you want?
Not exactly. I'm not too bothered about the history of the exceptions,
std::exception used to have a why() member that returned the list of
exceptions leading to the one caught. Is that part of what you want?
On Friday, Mar 21, 2003, at 03:58 America/Denver, Alisdair Meredith
wrote:
Darren Cook wrote:
I wanted something like the call stack that shows in python or
On Thursday, Mar 20, 2003, at 11:33 America/Denver, Brian Gray wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 04:50 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
Without runtime library support it will be difficult to do, but not
impossible --
the Oracle runtime has platform-specific code for capturing the stack
trace on
std::exception once had a where() member for this purpose, but it
didn't survive.
Without runtime library support it will be difficult to do, but not
impossible --
the Oracle runtime has platform-specific code for capturing the stack
trace on all
the of the many platforms we support. I can't p
At 06:06 AM 3/12/2003, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:15:48 -0800, "Jaap Suter"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> The effect is the same.
>>> However, (a) or BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( true ) avoids all of the
>>> (potential?) problems you are worrying about. So why do you prefer
>>> (
#define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( B ) \
typedef void BOOST_JOIN(boost_static_assert_typedef_, __LINE__)
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
At 06:23 PM 3/9/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>is ";" legal where a declaration is expected?
>
>class X
>{
> ; // legal?
>};
>
>Comeau says it isn't:
>
>MODE:strict errors C++
>
>"ComeauTest.c", line 3: error: extra ";" ignored,
>In C: A function definition does not end with a semicolon
>
What are you trying to do?
Usually weak_ptr is used as the value in a map with some other key, so
that just being in the map doesn't prevent an object from being deleted.
At 06:52 PM 3/7/2003, Joe Gottman wrote:
> I just realized that it would be impossible to use weak_ptr with any
>hash. The
(d) It makes it easier to work with a fixed-width terminal
or terminal emulator.
You may think this is an obsolete requirment, but I spend
most of my working days using a VT-100 emulator connected
to various servers running just Oracle, gdb, gcc, vi, and
a shell.
At 09:34 AM 3/6/2003, Paul Be
At 01:10 PM 3/4/2003, Jason House wrote:
>James Curran wrote:
>>
>> Both the Standard & MSVC6 allow a (const char*) as a template parameter.
>> What is rejected (by both) is a text literal parameter. For a non-type
>> parameter, the value must be a constant across all translation units lin
template
void callback(int i) { (p->*f)(i); }
At 08:02 AM 3/4/2003, Marc Jacobs wrote:
>I'm trying to use a member function as a callback to a C-style library. I've
>got the bind working by itself, but the resulting function object does not
>convert to the type required by the library. Clearly
At 10:16 AM 3/1/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
>Greg Colvin wrote:
>
>> Which is why the original releaser<> proposal is not in the standard.
>> There are just too many different kinds of resource, with too many
>> different ways of acquiring and releasing them.
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 thin
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
When Mark Terribile proposed a class like this way back in
the last century I think he called it "releaser".
At 04:00 PM 2/25/2003, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
>> This is an excellent point. One doesn't go looking for a class
>> named "smart_ptr" or a library named "Boost.SmartPointer" when
>> look
At 03:34 AM 2/23/2003, Thomas Witt wrote:
>Greg,
>
>I can not figure out how you make sure to satisfy the alignment constraints of
>T and counted_base_header_impl. Any hint would be appreciated.
I just used two char arrays, thinking there was a dispensation
somewhere in the standard to allow for
The weather kept me at home today, so I had time to hack in
a new constructor for shared_ptr that keeps the count in a
header which is allocated along with the counted object.
Like intrusive_ptr, but intrusive in a different way. If
anyone has time to apply the patches and see if it is as
fast as
Agreed. But if smart_resource is intended as a contribution
to Boost I don't see a big problem.
At 01:48 PM 2/21/2003, Michel André wrote:
>Is shared_count scheduled to come out from the detail namespace and be
>publically available and maybe a bit documented?
>
>I don't think we should encourage
Any thoughts on this issue?
>From: Steve Clamage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: C++ core language mailing list
>Message c++std-core-9820
>
>Some compilers implement thread-local storage (TLS) for what would
>otherwise be global variables. The compiler and runtime system
>arrange for each thread to see
At 03:56 AM 2/15/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>... in the standards committee we operate in the
>rarified air where all compilers are perfectly conforming (just
>kidding, but it's almost like that).
It is indeed like that. There wasn't a compiler in
the world that could handle the standard library
It wouldn't be too difficult to write a custom deallocator
for shared_ptr that supported release of ownership. Given
the dangers I'd rather see it done that way than by adding
a release() function to shared_ptr.
And I don't see a problem with adding constructors to
scoped_ptr that support custom
At 07:25 PM 2/4/2003, Paul Mensonides wrote:
>...
>
>If an implicit conversion to the pointed-to type is provided, there is no need to
>overload the subscript operator:
>
>...
>
>The same applies to the standing problem of operator->*().
>
>2c.
Yep. More reasons why I prefer that smart pointers
At 09:41 AM 2/1/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
>Beman Dawes wrote:
>
>> See http://www.boost.org/more/cpp_committee_meetings.html. While the
>> general public isn't invited to committee meetings, Boost "technical
>> experts" are welcome.
>
>So how would I qualify myself as a "Boost technical expert
At 04:10 PM 1/31/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>I've seen some talk of fully in-memory databases, and have a few
>questions:
>
>1) Does anyone have any experience with them?
Yes.
>2) Would people use them if there were a nice library available?
Yes.
>It seems that such a library could benefit from
At 01:44 PM 1/31/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>>>The move/forwarding proposals will fix that. In the meantime we have
>>>boost::ref(x)... ugly but effective.
>>
>> Can you give us link to that proposal?
>
>You can find it in
>http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/mailings/papers/2002/pre_sant
At 10:48 AM 1/31/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> At 09:53 AM 1/31/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>>>...
>>>In fact, I have been arguing for years that our smart pointers should
>>>never have had a public
At 09:53 AM 1/31/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>...
>In fact, I have been arguing for years that our smart pointers should
>never have had a public interface which adopts unmanaged resources on
>construction. Instead, we should write:
>
>std::auto_ptr = std::auto_ptr_new(arg1, arg2, arg3);
>
>Vo
At 06:24 PM 1/30/2003, Howard Hinnant wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 11:19 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
>
>>My problem with auto_ptr isn't so much the semantics, which
>>have proved useful and are probably the minimum needed to
>>solve the problem that the com
At 01:10 PM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>>>"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Glenn --
>>>>
>>>&
At 11:38 AM 1/30/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> I read a paper yesterday from the latest OOPSLA proceedings
>> that argued that a class-specific new is almost never a win
>> compared to a high-quality
At 09:12 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>From: "Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> At 06:23 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> >
>> >To be fair, a factor of two improvement cannot just be shrugged off. But
>one
>> >point to keep in mind i
At 08:16 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> Would you indulge me and try the benchmark again with the enclosed
>>> shared_count patch applied and #undef BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR? I
>>> don't reall
At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Glenn --
>>
>> Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
>> boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
>>
>>
>>> A licensing question for everyone:
>
At 06:23 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> b19hhg$i2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b19hhg$i2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > [...]
>> > list shifted_ptr took 7.1966276647 seconds to reconstruct 2000
>
I notice that a special operator new must be used
to create objects pointed to by shifted_ptr. Is
this really necessaty? It prevents shifted_ptr
from just being an alternative implementation of
shared_ptr.
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.
At 08:25 PM 1/28/2003, Edward Diener wrote:
>"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> At 01:42 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>>
>> >"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:42 AM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>...
>> Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated.
>
>Disavowing your child? ;)
With extreme prejudice.
> Not everyone agrees with you. Af
At 10:08 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> 009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d0
At 09:37 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
>> From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [...]
>> >
>> > It should be noted that the constructor
At 05:13 PM 1/27/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>"Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>b14fuc$hh0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b14fuc$hh0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> b14cq2$2km$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b14cq2$2km$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
At 03:47 PM 1/27/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> At 04:25 PM 1/24/2003, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>>
>> >Just out of curiosity, which boost libraries are likely to be proposed
>to
>> >the committee?
At 06:16 PM 1/26/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 18:50:13 +0100, David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>> Hum. It's fine to make Peter's particular example defined, but I'm a
>>> little concerned about asking to lift *all* undefined behavior for
>>
Just a reminder that Boost is freely licensed, so that
nothing stops anyone from putting together a Boost
distribution and exchanging copies of it for donations
to whatever charity they want, or to their own pockets.
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http
At 05:24 PM 1/19/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>"Terje Slettebø" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>038e01c2bf0e$cc8f35a0$cb6c6f50@pc">news:038e01c2bf0e$cc8f35a0$cb6c6f50@pc...
>>I'm also all for simplicity, cohesion, decoupling, do the simplest thing
>that could possibly work (XP/pragmatic p
At 12:11 PM 1/19/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>As interesting as this may be, the discussion of string literals as
>template parameters is off-topic for this group. Please either
>connect this discussion back to library design or take it elsewhere.
Agreed. An interesting question is how to desig
At 10:59 AM 1/19/2003, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:16:36 -0700, Greg Colvin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>At a meeting years ago I proposed to make string literals more
>>useful as constant expressions, but we decided against that.
>>As I r
At 11:30 AM 1/18/2003, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:13:45 -0500, David Abrahams
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Unfortunately
>>> the committee seems on the road of prohibiting this and other similar
>>> (and potentially more useful) use
At 07:33 AM 1/18/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>From: "Terje Slettebø" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >
>> > Please don't take this to mean I'm against a
>> > policy-based smart pointer; quite the opposite. I've
>> > said all along it would be great to have one in
At 02:56 PM 1/14/2003, Dave Harris wrote:
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 23:04:35 +0100 Ares Lagae
>([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> > How do you see archive versioning being done? For example,
>> > suppose field TOTAL is a double in version 1 and a
>> fixed-point user-defined
At 03:11 AM 1/14/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:
>Stefano Delli Ponti said:
>> From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> David Abrahams said:
>>> > "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> >
>>> >>> People said they wanted it, and the cost is low (one int). I think
>>> Greg is righ
Perhaps more progress would be made if the quest for
the "one best example" is dropped in favor of a small
series of examples?
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
At 03:15 PM 1/10/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:
>> From: Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> At 11:18 AM 1/10/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:
>> >> From: David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> >> From: Martin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >>
At 02:53 PM 1/10/2003, Beman Dawes wrote:
>...
>
>Some platforms are so limited they fall outside the standard's "hosted" category, and
>we don't have to worry about them.
>
>Some platforms are fully featured, so again no worries.
>
>What you are worrying about seems to me to be platforms which mi
At 01:32 PM 1/9/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:
>> From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > From: "Stefano Delli Ponti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > > From: "Stefano Delli Ponti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > > From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTE
At 10:22 AM 1/8/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> At 04:02 PM 1/7/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>>>...
>>>
>>>I can barely think of a reasonable design where GC is a big design win
>>>;-)
>>
>
At 04:02 PM 1/7/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>...
>
>I can barely think of a reasonable design where GC is a big design win
>;-)
A Python interpreter?
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
At 01:23 PM 1/7/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> From: "Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > My old cyclic_ptr code is still somewhere on the Boost pages,
>> > and might offer a better solution to these
At 11:04 AM 1/7/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:
>> From: Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> At 09:23 AM 1/7/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> >From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>
>> >> I think that extending it to free
At 05:09 PM 1/6/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Howard Hinnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> OK, I see your point. How about:
>>
>> template
>> struct my_container
>> : if_<
>>
At 09:23 AM 1/7/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> I think that extending it to free memory in cycles would be a great idea.
>Of course, this opens a large can of worms about how to handle destruction
>of objects which refer to each other...<
>
>One possibl
At 08:19 PM 1/6/2003, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>...
>> > P.S. Outputting "Hello, world" in a way that generates significantly
>> > more code than the run-time version is probably not a good way to
>> > endear users to metaprogr
At 12:56 PM 1/4/2003, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>Greg Colvin wrote:
>> > If it was run-time C++, I would be happy with 'apply_tuple',
>> > but in MPL domain "tuple" isn't really the right word, and I
>> > don't like 'apply_seq&#
At 02:54 AM 1/4/2003, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>How would you call an 'apply' counterpart that takes a metafunction class
>and a _sequence_ of arguments, i.e.:
>
>typedef list_c args;
>typedef apply_tuple< plus<>, args >::type sum; // this one
>BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(sum::value == 5);
>
>?
>
At 01:34 PM 12/17/2002, Greg Colvin wrote:
>At 09:47 AM 12/17/2002, you wrote:
>>I hope it is permissible to ask a mp question.
>>
>>I'd like to have a template parameter is an int. If represents an
>>arithmetic shift of an integral value. If the parameter is p
At 09:47 AM 12/17/2002, you wrote:
>I hope it is permissible to ask a mp question.
>
>I'd like to have a template parameter is an int. If represents an
>arithmetic shift of an integral value. If the parameter is positive
>I'd like to shift left, and if negative shift right.
>
>Is it feasible to i
At 02:58 PM 12/9/2002, you wrote:
>At 03:53 PM 12/8/2002, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 13:16:24 -0700, Greg Colvin
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>It may be time to post a question to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>Thank you
It may be time to post a question to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:59 PM 12/8/2002, you wrote:
>--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying I hold the truth. I'm offering my reading, just as others
>> are doing.
>
>Yeah, that's ok. I meant: it's unlikely that we can really find
At 06:30 PM 12/3/2002, Sean Parent wrote:
>on 12/3/02 1:44 PM, Terje Slettebø at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Is Adobe asking for more from a non-profit community like Boost, than they
>> are willing to give themselves, for software they sell? This license is for
>> the free Acrobat Reader, but I
I volunteer. I could also run the licenses of stuff
I'd like to use at work, like CPP metaprogramming, by
the Oracle lawyers, who are truly paranoid.
At 06:01 PM 12/3/2002, you wrote:
>This is a formal call for volunteers to fill out a few of the
>open-source license evaluations at
>http://www.c
At 02:53 PM 12/3/2002, you wrote:
>"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>>
>> If I understand you correctly, those are counts of the number of files.
>>
>Yes. The visible tendency is to provide all formats: zip/gz/bzip2. Previous
At 01:32 PM 11/18/2002, Rob Stewart wrote:
>From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> I recently reached the conclusion that taking a parameter by const reference
>> just to make a copy of it inside the function is a "lie". The signature
>> says: "I don't need a value! A reference to a
73 matches
Mail list logo
