- Boost-users - lists.boost.org

minor "enhancement" (?) to boost/test/auto_unit_test.hpp
by Oliver Schoenborn 07 Apr '05

07 Apr '05

I like the auto test feature of Boost.test because it's quick and simple to use. Unfortunately, when BOOST_AUTO_TEST_MAIN is #define'd, the auto suite name is hardcoded. Changing auto_unit_test.hpp so user can, *if desired*, change it, can be done with following patch: $ diff -u ~/downloads/boost_1_32_0/boost/test/auto_unit_test.hpp /c/Boost/inclu de/boost-1_32/boost/test/auto_unit_test.hpp --- boost_1_32_0/boost/test/auto_unit_test.hpp Mon Jul 19 09:12:40 2004 +++ /c/Boost/include/boost-1_32/boost/test/auto_unit_test.hpp Wed Apr 6 12:46:07 2005 @@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ // Boost.Test #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> +#ifndef BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_NAME +#define BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_NAME "Auto Unit Test" +#endif + // ************************************************************************** // // ************** auto_unit_test_registrar ************** // // ************************************************************************** // @@ -27,10 +31,17 @@ namespace unit_test { namespace ut_detail { +inline const char* +suiteName(const char* name = NULL) +{ + return name ? name : BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_NAME; +} + inline boost::unit_test::test_suite* auto_unit_test_suite() { - static boost::unit_test::test_suite* inst = BOOST_TEST_SUITE( "Auto Unit Test" ); + static boost::unit_test::test_suite* inst + = BOOST_TEST_SUITE( suiteName(BOOST_AUTO_TEST_MAIN) ); return inst; } This allows you to do any of: 1) Like current (default suite name is "Auto Unit Test"): #define BOOST_AUTO_TEST_MAIN 2) Change from default suite name to what you want: #define BOOST_AUTO_TEST_MAIN "Your suite name" 3) Same, but doesn't "overload" the BOOST_AUTO_TEST_MAIN: #define BOOST_AUTO_TEST_MAIN #define BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_NAME "Your suite name" This enhancement maintains backward compatibility but allows automated test suites to be distinguishable. Oliver

2 1

Regex trouble (compiling a simple expression fails)
by Bogdan Harjoc 06 Apr '05

06 Apr '05

Hi, I've looked at replacing the pcre library with boost regex,mainly because the C++ interface seems more usable than the plain C functions from pcre. The trouble is, I'm wasn't able to adjust regular expressions to the format boost regex uses. For instance, while pcre and others seem to like the expression "\?", boost throws bad_expression. The same goes for "\(", "\+" and others I'm using. So, I suppose the question is, is there a flag that can be set for the regex constructor that enables compatibility with a certain regex specification or should the regexp I gave as an example not be accepted ? Any hints would be kindly appreciated. Thanks, Bogdan.

3 3

is_same_impl
by Gottlob Frege 06 Apr '05

06 Apr '05

template <typename T> ::boost::type_traits::yes_type BOOST_TT_DECL is_same_tester(T*, T*); ::boost::type_traits::no_type BOOST_TT_DECL is_same_tester(...); template <typename T, typename U> struct is_same_impl { static T t; static U u; BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, value = (::boost::type_traits::ice_and< (sizeof(type_traits::yes_type) == sizeof(detail::is_same_tester(&t,&u))), (::boost::is_reference<T>::value == ::boost::is_reference<U>::value), (sizeof(T) == sizeof(U)) >::value)); }; Would it be any better to do is_same_tester with just one arg, like this: template <typename T> ::boost::type_traits::yes_type BOOST_TT_DECL is_same_tester(T*); template <typename T> ::boost::type_traits::no_type BOOST_TT_DECL is_same_tester(...); and then the call is:. (sizeof(type_traits::yes_type) == sizeof(detail::is_same_tester<T>(&u))), (and then not need a 'static T t' at all?) And does it make any difference to declare the U as a pointer: static U *u; // and/or leave off the static and then not pass it in by address: (sizeof(type_traits::yes_type) == sizeof(detail::is_same_tester<T>(u))), Or not bother with a U at all, but just cast 0 into a U*: (sizeof(type_traits::yes_type) == sizeof(detail::is_same_tester<T>(static_cast<U *>(0)))), Or does none of it really make a difference? And while I am at it, what would the value of 'same' be: struct A { int x; }; struct B : A; static bool same = boost::type_traits::is_same<A, B>::value; I suspect same == true, as B is castable to an A, and sizeof(B) == sizeof(A). checking both is_same_tester<T>(u) and is_same_tester<U>(t) might be better?

3 2

[Regex] Is it possible to assign an alias to a subexpression (to use later instead of its index)?
by jordi 06 Apr '05

06 Apr '05

Hi, I would like to know if it's possible to assign an alias/name to a sub-expression. When using short regex there is no problem nor confusion but when using a long regex then I get lost looking at the correct index to use. It would be much easier if I can assign an alias. So, instead to use a regex like this: "\s*(\d+)\s+(\d+)\s+(\d+)\s+" I would like to be able to use something like: "\s*([$VALUE1]\d+)\s+([$VALUE2]\d+)\s+([$VALUE3]\d+)\s+" I don't know if this feature exists in regex but I haven't found it but maybe I dind't know where to find... Thanks in advance, Jordi

5 9

mpl, for_each, KCC incompatibility
by Stephen Gross 06 Apr '05

06 Apr '05

Hi all... I have a file that includes 'boost/mpl/for_each.hpp'. When compiled with KCC 4.0 on an x86 machine running Redhat Linux (8, I think), I get the following compile error: "boost_1_32_0/boost/mpl/aux_/preprocessed/no_ttp/arg.hpp", line 27: error: more than one instance of overloaded function "boost::mpl::assert_not_arg" matches the argument list: function template "mpl_::assert_not_arg(void (*)(Pred), mpl_::assert_arg_pred<Pred>::type)" function template "mpl_::assert_not_arg(void (*)(Pred), mpl_::assert_arg_pred_not<Pred>::type)" argument types are: (void (*)(boost::mpl::is_na<U1>), int) BOOST_MPL_AUX_ASSERT_NOT_NA(type); Any ideas? Troubleshooting this one is a bit beyond my abilities... Thanks, --Steve (sgross(a)darwin.cwru.edu)

2 1

enable_if and constructors
by Angus Leeming 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

I see examples of enable_if used to specify a return type to a function: template <class T> typename enable_if_c<boost::is_arithmetic<T>::value, T>::type foo(T t) { return t; } Is it possible to use enable_if with a constructor? For example, I'd like to define a constructor that allows only certain values of an enum: #include <boost/utility/enable_if.hpp> class foo { public: enum state { state1, state2, state3 }; // This should compile only when passed (s == state2 or s == state3) template<int ID> foo(boost::enable_if_c<some_boolean_condition, state>::type s) : status_(s) {} private: state status_; }; Even if this turns out to be impossible, I'd like to go on and try to define some_boolean_condition if I may. I see that Aleksey plans a contains_c metafunction for 1.33, http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?MPL_TODO_List Equivalent URL: http://tinyurl.com/4toly so my limited understanding leads me to some_boolean_condition is equivalent to: mpl::contains_c< mpl::vector_c< int, state2, state3 >, ID >::value Does that look correct? In the absence of contains_c, I've been trying to use mpl::find_if but my predicate compiles for both "valid" and "invalid" values, so I must be doing something wrong. I'd be grateful if someone could put me back on track. Regards, Angus #include <boost/type_traits/is_same.hpp> #include <boost/mpl/assert.hpp> #include <boost/mpl/end.hpp> #include <boost/mpl/equal_to.hpp> #include <boost/mpl/find_if.hpp> #include <boost/mpl/lambda.hpp> #include <boost/mpl/integral_c.hpp> #include <boost/mpl/not.hpp> #include <boost/mpl/vector_c.hpp> class foo { public: enum state { state1, state2, state3 }; }; int main() { // Should lead to a compile-time failure. #define TESTED_VALUE foo::state1 // Should compile. // #define TESTED_VALUE foo::state2 namespace mpl = boost::mpl; typedef mpl::vector_c< int, foo::state2, foo::state3 > allowable_values; typedef mpl::find_if< allowable_values, mpl::equal_to< mpl::_1, mpl::integral_c<allowable_values::value_type, TESTED_VALUE> > >::type iter; BOOST_MPL_ASSERT(( mpl::not_< boost::is_same< iter::type, mpl::end<allowable_values>::type > > )); return 0; }

2 6

Re: [Boost-users] Filesystem woes
by Sean DeNigris 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

I got the posted code to pass with VC7.1, /MDd and /Zc:wchar_t.

2 1

boost::bind() compiler error in MS VC++6.0
by Vivid Yang 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

Hi, I have experienced an unexpected compiler error when I tried to use boost::bind(): include\boost\bind\arg.hpp(26) : fatal error C1001: INTERNAL COMPILER ERROR (compiler file 'msc1.cpp', line 1794) Please choose the Technical Support command on the Visual C++ Help menu, or open the Technical Support help file for more information The code has been successfully comipled, linked and run under linux. But it failed to compile with MS VC++6.0 under WinXP SP2. I have installed MS VC++ service pack 4, 5 and 6. The project is set to "Debug MultiThreaded". The project option is "/nologo /MTd /W3 /Gm /GX /ZI /Od" . Turning on/off precompiled header file does not help neither. I have googled the problem and tried several ways to solve it. Still no luck so far. Could anybody help? Thanks a lot Vivid

2 1

unordered_map has no lower_bound?
by Martin Wartens 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

Hi, I am already using the unordered_map implementation from the file vault. I have got some problems with unordered_map, because it offers no "lower_bound" (it is not a problem of the implementation, it is simply not in the specs). My question is, why is that so and what can I do about it? The use case is an efficient insert when I have to take special actions when the key is already in the container. For a map this would work like: iter = lower_bound(key); which gets the first element greater or equal to key Now I can check if the key is already in the map and execute some action to handle this case. Then I can insert the new element in the map with the "hint"-version of insert: mymap.insert(iter, newelement); The hint-version starts searching at the hint for the correct insertion point, so we don't have to search through the map twice. It is strange that such a hint-insert also exists for the unordered_map. But what hint could I give it, if I don't have lower_bound? Thanks, Martin PS: there is a small problem in hash_table.hpp causing a warning in VC7.1 line 278 should be: return (*prev_ptr)!=0; instead of return *prev_ptr;

4 7

multi_index and VC70 problem
by Martin 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

When compiling the following code on VC70 struct tTest { tTest() : x(0), y(0), z(0) int x,y,z; }; typedef multi_index_container< tTest, indexed_by< ordered_unique< composite_key< BOOST_MULTI_INDEX_MEMBER(tTest, int, x) ,BOOST_MULTI_INDEX_MEMBER(tTest, int, y) ) // replaced > with ) since gmane thinks I'm top-posting ) ) ) tTestList; void func() { tTestList u; u.insert(tTest()); } I get an error boost\multi_index\composite_key.hpp(573) : error C2100: illegal indirection boost\multi_index\ordered_index.hpp(562) : see reference to function template instantiation 'boost::multi_index::composite_key<Value,KeyFromValue0,KeyFromVal ue1,KeyFromValue2,KeyFromValue3,KeyFromValue4,KeyFromValue5,KeyFromValue6,KeyFr omValue7,KeyFromValue8,KeyFromValue9>::result_type boost::multi_index::composite_key<Value,KeyFromValue0,KeyFromValue1,KeyFromValu e2,KeyFromValue3,KeyFromValue4,KeyFromValue5,KeyFromValue6,KeyFromValue7,KeyFro mValue8,KeyFromValue9>::operator ()(const ChainedPtr &) const' being compiled with [ Value=boost::multi_index::member_offset<tTest,int,0>, KeyFromValue0=boost::multi_index::member_offset<tTest,int,4>, KeyFromValue1=boost::tuples::null_type, KeyFromValue2=boost::tuples::null_type, KeyFromValue3=boost::tuples::null_type, KeyFromValue4=boost::tuples::null_type, KeyFromValue5=boost::tuples::null_type, KeyFromValue6=boost::tuples::null_type, KeyFromValue7=boost::tuples::null_type, KeyFromValue8=boost::tuples::null_type, KeyFromValue9=boost::tuples::null_type, ChainedPtr=tTest ]

2 3