Rani Sharoni wrote:
>
> > Compiler: GNU C++ version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease)
I also tried the GCC 3.2.1, but without success. It compiles, but it
gives the wrong results.
> > Any ideas, or results from other compilers?
AFAICS the Intel 7 works fine.
> I was able to complie the attached code
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> Which is why the first "I" in RAII stands for "is". Each acquired
> resource should initialize exactly one (sub)object.
>
> > Or acquiring a resource in any other context when members can
>
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:57:19 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>In one of his usual shows of responsiveness, Lars has fixed a bug in
>Gmane that would prevent the "thread view" link at the bottom of a
>message from working because our message archive is too big.
>
>See http://news
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:21:07 +0100, Gennaro Prota
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:58:33 -, "John Maddock"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> is there, among the uses of is_convertible that you have listed, any
>>> usage where no expression could be used (so that you would nee
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:47:52 -0800, "Andrei Alexandrescu"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> While we're at it, is the final verdict that is_base_and_derived
>> should be false? What about is_base_and_derived?
>
>Well, clearly void is no base. Even if
Somewhere in the E.U., le 30/01/2003
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Rozental, Gennadiy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >template
> >class atanh_tester
> >{
> >public:
> > atanh_tester(char *)
> > {
> > }
> >
> > void operator () ()
> > {
> >
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> Which is why the first "I" in RAII stands for "is". Each acquired
>> resource should initialize exactly one (sub)object.
>>
>> > Or acquir
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:57:19 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>In one of his usual shows of responsiveness, Lars has fixed a bug in
>>Gmane that would prevent the "thread view" link at the bottom of a
>>message from working becaus
>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:47:52 -0800, "Andrei Alexandrescu"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> While we're at it, is the final verdict that is_base_and_derived
> >> should be false? What about is_base
--- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And here to see more in the same thread:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/11744
And this, added to the initial 4 messages, is still less than what I have in my
newsreader.
[...]
> No, it doesn't use subject contents. Threadin
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And here to see more in the same thread:
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/11744
>
> And this, added to the initial 4 messages, is still less than what I have in my
> newsreader.
>
>
The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
it'll screw up all vc6 testing pretty badly.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_
>From: "Terje Slettebø" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Given that supertype/subtype has such a general meaning, how should an
> is_super_and_subtype be defined? I guess the proposal mean to define it in
> terms of inheritance, only, and in that case, it would work like
> is_base_and_derived, with the addit
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:36:37 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Lars is looking for a volunteer to rewrite the software if you're
>interested...
If it is in PHP then I don't think I'm the right person :-)
Genny.
___
Unsubscribe & other
>From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry for the multiple posts.
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > While we're at it, is the final verdict that is_base_and_derived
> > should be false? What about is_base_and_derived?
>
> Well, clearly void is no base.
True.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:13:23 +0100, Terje Slettebø
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:47:52 -0800, "Andrei Alexandrescu"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> While we're at it,
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:33:04 +0100, Terje Slettebø
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Even if we also define is_super_and_subtype,
>> void is hardly a supertype of everything.
>
>Well, it could be. It's like an "abstract base class", even for built-in
>
> I see that you haven't replied to this for long time now. So either
> you are bored from the question, or it wasn't clear enough. To see if
> it is the second case I thought to reformulate it:
Well only for a day and a bit, sorry just busy :-(
> Can you show, with an example, why the code used
> To me this is a bad idea, from a usability point of view. I strongly
> object against making this change. The argument ordering is perfectly
> obvious in is_base_and_derived, there is no such hint in is_base.
Personally I agree, I will bring this up again with the LWG folks,
John Maddock
http:/
> > Any ideas, or results from other compilers?
>AFAICS the Intel 7 works fine.
Thanks.
John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> The following version works on g++ for the same cases that the current
> is_base_and_derived works (i.e. excluding multiple bases, and
> private/protected inheritance), and gives an error in the cases it doesn't
> work, while it works completely on the compilers that supports this (such
as
> Come
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:38:36 -, "John Maddock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Except it *doesn't work* !
>
>The problem is that your static assertion don't test anything, changing to:
>
>//typedef char TestA[is_base_and_derived::result]; // Multiple bases
>(error on g++)
>typedef char TestB[is_ba
"Daniel Frey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Compiler: GNU C++ version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease)
> I also tried the GCC 3.2.1, but without success. It compiles, but it
> gives the wrong results.
> > > Any ideas, or results from other co
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
times.
> > [...]
> > list shared_ptr took 14.015
"Terje Slettebø" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
05e001c2c7b8$ebb14b50$cb6c6f50@pc">news:05e001c2c7b8$ebb14b50$cb6c6f50@pc...
>
> template
> struct helper
> {
> template
> static char check(D const volatile &, T);
> static char (& check(B const volatile &, int))[2];
>
> struct
> To be fair, a factor of two improvement cannot just be shrugged off. But
one
> point to keep in mind is that
>
> shared_ptr px(new X);
>
> performs two allocations. We can optimize the count allocation until we're
> blue in the face but in a real project the whole expression will probably
> rema
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > [...]
| > template
| >Vec = std::vector >;
|
| This looks cool! Is someone going to write a proposal for this before
| April?
Yes, I'll do.
| Or does this type of change not get considered at that time?
Well, the notion of "template
Hey there!
I've had some problems trying to make a function pointer to a specific
windows callback function. It's defined as "LRESULT CALLBACK WndProc(
HWND
hWnd, UINT message, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam )", however, any sore
attempt I try to get the boost::bind working with it seems to fail
mis
>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:13:23 +0100, Terje Slettebø
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:47:52 -0800, "Andrei Alexandrescu"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Peter Dimov" <
>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:33:04 +0100, Terje Slettebø
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Even if we also define is_super_and_subtype,
> >> void is hardly a supertype of everything.
> >
> >Well, it could
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 really know what's going on under the covers in the SGI
> allocator; this is basically just the same hack
Somewhere in the E.U., le 30/01/2003
Bonjour
OK, I tried to use the following advice:
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Rozental, Gennadiy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >template
> >class atanh_tester
> >{
> >public:
> > atanh_tester(char *)
> > {
> >
"Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:38:36 -, "John Maddock"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Except it *doesn't work* !
> >
>
> John, unfortunately I have to turn off my computer now. I had just
> hacked up
On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
> The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
> it'll screw up all vc6 testing pretty badly.
When did you first start seeing this? Last night? I didn't change anything...
Doug
___
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:
>
> Is there any problem with submitting, for possible inclusion in
> Boost, a library that was previously r
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:20 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
> It seems to me that while lib developers may be interested in the "big
> table", most users, unless they care extraordinarily about
> portability, will want to know about individual compiler results. I
> wonder if we shouldn't be assem
"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 really know what's going on under the covers in the SGI
>
"Rani Sharoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b1bd2p$i97$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1bd2p$i97$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:38:36 -, "John Maddock"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually the reason for my question is a little strange :-) I hope to
> explain it in understandable English: Andrej said
>
> "void is hardly a supertype of everything"
>
>
> Rewording it, it is: "void is not a supertype of everything".
>
> This imme
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:36:37 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Lars is looking for a volunteer to rewrite the software if you're
>>interested...
>
> If it is in PHP then I don't think I'm the right person :-)
He did use the word "re
"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:
>>
>> Is there any problem with submitting, for possib
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
>
>From: "John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >This is tested on Comeau 4.3, Intel C++ 6/7 and g++ 3.2.
>
> Except it *doesn't work* !
>
> The problem is that your static assertion don't test anything, changing
to:
>
> //typedef char TestA[is_base_and_derived::result]; // Multiple bases
> (error on
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:
>
>From: "Rani Sharoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > John, unfortunately I have to turn off my computer now. I had just
> > hacked up a version that seems to work with gcc, but I don't want to
> > po
Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 general purpose allocator like
> LEA.
In real code, I'm sure that's true. However, for the kind of
mea
Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:20 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
>> It seems to me that while lib developers may be interested in the "big
>> table", most users, unless they care extraordinarily about
>> portability, will want to know about individual compi
Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
>> The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
>> it'll screw up all vc6 testing pretty badly.
>
> When did you first start seeing this? Last night?
Yes.
> I didn't cha
From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've taken the liberty to convert the patch into
detail/quick_allocator.hpp.
> > #define BOOST_SP_USE_QUICK_ALLOCATOR to make shared_ptr use it.
> > shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp has been updated, too. You can
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> I'm not all set up to run those tests and measure the times, which is
> why I was hoping Philippe would check it out.
I'm setting up the readonly cvs right now (only have latest 1.28). I
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 is that
> >
> >shared_ptr px(new X);
> >
> >performs two allocations. We can optimize the count allocation
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
From: "DudeSan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hey there!
>
> I've had some problems trying to make a function pointer to a specific
> windows callback function. It's defined as "LRESULT CALLBACK WndProc(
> HWND
> hWnd, UINT message, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam )", however, any sore
> attempt I try to get
On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
> Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
> >> it'll screw up all vc6 testing pretty badly.
> >
> > W
From: "Hubert Holin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> but if I have a templated functions instead
>
>template
>void ft(int)
>{
>}
>
> then the following invocation will not compile
>
>test->add(BOOST_TEST_CASE(::boost::bind(&ft, 1)));
This is a C++ problem. You may need to first c
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm not all set up to run those tests and measure the times, which is
>> why I was hoping Philippe would check it out.
>
> There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called
> shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp that you can use.
OK.
>> > quick_allocator doesn't c
Jeremy Siek wrote:
> ghost> vector< vertex > alternative_s ;
> ghost> iterator_property_map< vector::iterator,
> ghost> property_map > alternative = ...
> ghost>
> ghost> The problem is that I have to pass alternative_s.begin() when
> ghost> constructig alternative, but I might want to add n
On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
> > [Yes, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I really
> > don't think we should ever be generating documentation directly from
> > C++ code.]
>
> I can't see any relevance. Care to explain?
I stated that _very_ poorly. I me
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [...]
> > Here, r_ can't tell if foo is being destructed, or just r_, and that
> > could be a very important difference.
>
> It usually isn't. I'm tempted to assert that it shouldn't be.
> When d
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 is that
>> >
>> >shared_ptr px(new X);
>> >
>> >performs t
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I've taken the liberty to convert the patch into
> detail/quick_allocator.hpp.
>> > #define BOOST_SP_USE_QUICK_ALLOCATOR to make shared_ptr use it.
>> > share
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:34:44 +0200, "Rani Sharoni"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> John, unfortunately I have to turn off my computer now. I had just
>> hacked up a version that seems to work with gcc, but I don't want to
>> post it before a be
From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp
that
> > you can use.
>
> Your test doesn't seem to terminate for me in a reasonable amount of
> time (minutes) in any configuration.
Somewhere in the E.U., le 30/01/2003
Bonjour
In article <005b01c2c87b$f8d90520$1d00a8c0@pdimov2>,
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Hubert Holin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
>
> > but if I have a templated functions instead
> >
> >template
> >void ft(int)
> >{
>
Gennaro Prota wrote:
>
> to avoid changes not forced by compiler bugs. Incidentally, I noticed
> that if you add a default argument
>
> template
> static yes check(D const volatile *, T = 0);
> static no check(B const volatile *, int = 0);
>
> and write:
>
> sizeof(checker::check( (C()
David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> > I've taken the liberty to convert the patch into
>> detail/quick_allocator.hpp.
>>> > #define BOOST_SP_USE_
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp
> that
>> > you can use.
>>
>> Your test doesn't seem to terminate for me in a reasona
From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called
shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp
> > that
> >> > you can use.
> >
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> You might need to use a lower n. Here's what I get (randomly choosing
> g++/mingw):
>
> GNU C++ version 2.95.3-6 (mingw special)
> Win32
> SGI standard library
> BOOST_HAS_THREADS: (not defined)
> BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR: (not defined)
> BOOST_SP_US
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:13:19 +0100, Terje Slettebø
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> Roughly speaking B is a base of D if and only if
>> the base-specifier-list of D contains a class name for B or for a
>> class of which B is a base. Of course you can see if that's the case
>> by knowing the def
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp
> that
>> > you can use.
>>
>> Your test doesn't seem to terminate for me in a reasona
David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>
>> You might need to use a lower n. Here's what I get (randomly choosing
>> g++/mingw):
>>
>> GNU C++ version 2.95.3-6 (mingw special)
>> Win32
>
> Wow, that's a much bigger improvement than I saw! I wonde
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:19:53 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Peter D. has effectively argued in the past that void *is* a supertype
>of everything (well, every object type, as opposed e.g. to
>function/function pointer types). Given the foregoing discussion
>about squares and re
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:20:32 -, "John Maddock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see that you haven't replied to this for long time now. So either
>> you are bored from the question, or it wasn't clear enough. To see if
>> it is the second case I thought to reformulate it:
>
>Well only for a day
"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 general purpose allocator like
> LEA.
Pointer?
Andrei
From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:19:53 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Peter D. has effectively argued in the past that void *is* a supertype
> >of everything (well, every object type, as opposed e.g. to
> >function/function pointer types).
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:43:49 -0600, "David B. Held"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I thought Herb's proposal was more or less "definitive". Is that
>not what's likely to be presented to the committee? If we got template
>aliasing as you describe above, then Herb's proposal is just fine with
>
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > [...]
>> > Here, r_ can't tell if foo is being destructed, or just r_, and that
>> > could be a very important difference.
>>
>> It usually isn't.
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 general purpose allocator like
>> LEA.
>
From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Your test doesn't seem to terminate for me in a reasonable amount of
> > time (minutes) in any configuration.
>
> That was Cygwin GCC-3.2.
You made me download it.
GNU C++ version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease)
Cygwin
GNU libstdc++ version 20020927
BO
David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can't judge that part, but I can say that this is an incredibly useful thing
> to do, as hinted at near the bottom of
> http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/008.htm (search for "base class"). It's one
> reason my implementation of an exception-safe STL was a lot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philippe,
Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
| Greeting,
|
| I would like to request a formal review for my library:
shifted_ptr. It
| consists of a smart pointer optimizing dynamic memory allocations and
| deallocations on the heap, thus lower require
One of the many things I'm attempting to do right now is to improve the
testing of Boost.Threads. I'd really like to use a more complex testing
system than seems available with the current Boost tools. Or maybe I'm
wrong, and it is possible. Here's a description of my requirements.
* Test cases
"Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b1a99m$fil$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1a99m$fil$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> shifted_ptr only works with "shifted objects" allocated with placement
> operator new (size_t, shifted_type const &). In theory it would be
possible
> to displa
--- Peter Dimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:19:53 -0500, David Abrahams
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Peter D. has effectively argued in the past that void *is* a supertype
> > >of everything (well, every object type,
>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:20:32 -, "John Maddock"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Can you show, with an example, why the code used for named template
> >> arguments can't reasonably use an expression?
> >
> >It doesn't have access to one, only a ty
> No, this won't work. boost::bind returns a function object, an object
with
> operator() defined, not a function pointer. You can't use bind() to
create
> a function pointer.
So, are there any suggestions or ideas that I could use?
I'm trying to make the wndProc point at a member function. I've
Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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...
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> That's a very imprecise description, and exactly what I mean by
> "not sure what you really wanted." Even though you think you have
> an answer now, I want to encourage you to write down ve
I'm sorry if I repeat some past discussion, I have not followed this
discussion thread from the beginning. (I read the past several posts to
make sure I didn't write anything too stupid)
I read http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.pdf
that genny referred to.
I have two c
At 12:20 PM 1/29/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>This is a minor complaint about the wonderful automatically generated
>page at http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/, and perhaps
>also which tables we're generating and how we're generating them.
>
>When I'm interested in finding out how a lib
At 11:29 AM 1/30/2003, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
>> > [Yes, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I really
>> > don't think we should ever be generating documentation directly from
>> > C++ code.]
>>
>> I can't see any relevance.
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 --
Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
boost mail, I'll take
At 11:05 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>> One option would be to dump the tests in some XML format, because we
can
>> easily transform that into the various HTML pages we'd want with an
XSLT
>> processor. Sourceforge has xsltproc available on its servers...
>
>Any format that can be proces
At 11:19 AM 1/30/2003, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
>> >> The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
>> >> it'l
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> That's a very imprecise description, and exactly what I mean by
>> "not sure what you really wanted." Even though you think you have
>> an
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> In real code, I'm sure that's true. However, for the kind of
> meaningless benchmark-rustling we're engaged in now, I bet the
> class-specific allocator works great ;-)
[...]
> I guess i
>From: "Jason House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2. Section 2.5 (Different Declarations) rubs me the wrong way. Thr
> proposal does say that some people dislike this, and I guess I'm one of
> them.
>
> If
> template class X;
> template typedef foo X;
> then I'm opposed to typeof(X) != typeof(foo)
A
"Thomas Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thanks for submitting. I will contact you as soon as I have found a
> review manager. This might take some days.
>
> BTW Volunteers, anybody?
>
> Thomas Witt
>
> Boost Review Wizard
Very appreciate
--On Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:45 PM +0100 Gennaro Prota
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But where is the true proposal? I just know this:
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.
pdf
which seems rather a magazine article to me.
The template typedef is being semi-formally
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
