Boost logo

Boost :

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-14 11:28:58

Jens Seidel wrote:
>> OK, it is now fixed. But I did not get any mail about it (at least
>> for
>> this bug report). I miss also your last comment ("Previous fix was
>> incomplete") and why didn't you get a mail about my initial bug
>> report (or did you recieve it?).
>> Is there a problem with trac and mails?

I'm not sure: I had to add my email address under the "settings" section in
order to see email notifications. I had previously assumed that it was set
up automatically given that you have to supply an email address when you
sign up, but apparently not.

>> PS: John, to avoid to miss other posts of you I just use this mail
>> to send you a further trivial patch which corrects mostly wrong
>> comments in your header inclusion file tests (did you not use
>> libs/math/test/compile_test/ to generate these?).

I did auto-generate them originally, but the tests weren't as effective as
I'd hoped so they got changed :-(

I should remove the shell script really.

I'll look into the buggy comments.

>> PS2: I still miss an explanation from you why you use both internal
>> and external inclusion guards:
>> boost/math/complex/asinh.hpp contains:
>> # include <boost/math/complex/details.hpp>
>> #endif
>> and boost/math/complex/details.hpp:
>> Is this just old code or was it necessary because of the
>> asinh/asin typo and you did so for other files as well?
>> I suggest to remove all outer include guards (also in other files).

Why? It makes no difference, except to improve performance for compilers
that don't implement the include-guard detection trick that gcc uses.

Regards, John

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at