April 2011 - Boost - lists.boost.org

bad include guards
by Steven Watanabe 26 Jan '17

26 Jan '17

AMDG The following pairs of files have identical include guards ./boost/concept_check/general.hpp ./boost/concept/detail/msvc.hpp ./boost/concept_check/msvc.hpp ./boost/concept/detail/msvc.hpp ./boost/filesystem/cerrno.hpp ./boost/cerrno.hpp ./boost/interprocess/containers/tree.hpp ./boost/interprocess/containers/detail/tree.hpp ./boost/mpl/min_max.hpp ./boost/mpl/max.hpp ./boost/mpl/vector/aux_/front.hpp ./boost/mpl/list/aux_/front.hpp ./boost/multi_index/identity_fwd.hpp ./boost/multi_index/identity.hpp ./boost/python/pointee.hpp ./boost/python/detail/pointee.hpp ./boost/spirit/phoenix/closures.hpp ./boost/lambda/closures.hpp ./boost/xpressive/proto/v1_/proto_typeof.hpp ./boost/xpressive/proto/proto_typeof.hpp ./libs/config/test/boost_no_dep_nested_class.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_has_vc6_mem_templ.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_no_mem_templates.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_has_vc6_mem_templ.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_no_std_allocator.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_has_vc6_mem_templ.ipp ./libs/conversion/test.hpp ./libs/any/test.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/print_container.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/expand_bwd_test_template.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/allocation_test_template.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/print_container.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/iostreams/test/detail/utf8_codecvt_facet.hpp ./boost/detail/utf8_codecvt_facet.hpp ./libs/regex/test/regress/test_regex_search.hpp ./libs/regex/test/regress/test_partial_match.hpp ./libs/serialization/test/C.hpp ./libs/serialization/test/A.hpp ./libs/xpressive/perf/regex_comparison.hpp ./libs/regex/performance/regex_comparison.hpp ./tools/inspect/time_string.hpp ./tools/common/time_string.hpp In Christ, Steven Watanabe

5 8

Arguing about names in Boost libraries
by Edward Diener 07 May '15

07 May '15

What is wrong with the people commenting on libraries for Boost who are so concerned about the names being used ? We are talking only about C++ identifiers and yet there are now endless discussions where people disagree on names or argue that some name is not what they want or that they like some other name, with a list of names that they find adequate. This is irrelevant. There is something mentally wrong about all those peoples spending endless amounts of time around this issue. I notice this does not happen nowadays for just one library but for ever single library, or proposed library, which is mentioned on this mailing list. Is this the way all of you people actually work in your daily jobs, or on your own projects, spending hours and days arguing with others about C++ identifiers for every little thing ? Are you not aware of the absurdity of your endless remarks ? Grow up ! Surely there are better things to do than carry on endlessly about some name, that is should be x or y or z or some other inane preferable list. It's time for somebody to say this, so I will do it. A C++ identifier name, as long as it is vaguely about what the functionality entails, is perfectly adequate. It does not have to satisfy everyone in the universe. Period !

9 10

Why no non-null smart pointers?
by Ross MacGregor 29 Apr '14

29 Apr '14

I just created a very small smart pointer libary for our project. It will contain two types of shared pointers: SharedHandle and NullableSharedHandle. SharedHandle will be a shared pointer that cannot be null by ensuring a non-null construction while NullableSharedHandle will basically be a typedef for boost::shared_ptr. I firmly believe that code can be made more reliable by minimizing the use of nullable pointers. To this end, I think it is important that we start using non-null pointer types. Ideally the compiler would be able to understand a non-null pointer and catch bugs at compile time, but I think we can still improve things with a few runtime checks. If we make sure that a shared pointer is constructed with a non-null pointer and ban any reset() type methods, we guarentee that it points to something. This can be beneficial for the following reasons: 1. Any function that uses this type will no longer be burdened with precondition checks to make sure variables of this type are not null. 2. It's type is simply more explicit and better explains its function. 3. Moving the non-null check to the creation phase will reduce the possibility of encountering null pointer exceptions at runtime (assuming there are many more pointer references than constructor calls). So my little pointer library seems to make a lot of sense, but if so why hasn't this simple smart pointer variation made it into boost yet? Has this been discussed somewhere already? My search on non-null smart pointers is not revealing much discussion on the topic. Regards, Ross

9 16

[mpl] integral_c [type_traits] integral_constant limits
by vicente.botet 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

Hi, I was testing Boost.Ratio with gcc-4.6 c++0x and I get some compile errors when instantiating std::cout << boost::mpl::integral_c< boost::intmax_t, boost::integer_traits<boost::intmax_t>::const_max >::value ; ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp: In instantiation of 'mpl_::integral_c<long long int, 0x7fffffffffffffffll>': ratio_io\ratio_io.pass.cpp:24:6: instantiated from here ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: warning: integer overflow in expression [-Woverflow] ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: error: '-0x8000000000000000ll' is not a valid template argument for type 'long long int' because it is a non-constant expression ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: error: '-0x8000000000000000ll' is not a constant expression integral_wrapper.hpp:72 contains typedef AUX_WRAPPER_INST( BOOST_MPL_AUX_STATIC_CAST(AUX_WRAPPER_VALUE_TYPE, (value + 1)) ) next; The same line pass with gcc-4.6, gcc-4.5 and gcc-4.5 c++0x with just a warning. ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp: In instantiation of 'mpl_::integral_c<long long int, 0x7fffffffffffffffll>': ratio_io\ratio_io.pass.cpp:23:6: instantiated from here ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: warning: integer overflow in expression [-Woverflow] integral_c is by integral_constant, but integral_constant doesn't needs next a prior types. This means that with the current implementation we can not use integral_constant with the max value of the type. Do you think this is a bug in integral_constant? Best, _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá http://viboes.blogspot.com/

5 7

De Bruijn Bind (alternate bind syntax) Interest?
by David Sankel 24 Jun '13

24 Jun '13

Hello all, I've been working on an alternate bind syntax based on De Bruijn indices[1]. The syntax is very simple, yet the terms are very powerful. Here is an example of a function const that takes in an argument c and returns another function that, for all input, returns c: //λx.λy.x = λλ1 with De Bruijn indices. auto const_ = abs<1>( abs<1>( var<1,0>() ) ); More examples, further explanation, and an implementation are available here[2]. I'm thinking that this library could also be useful as a core for more syntax heavy bind variations. David [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bruijn_index [2] http://bitbucket.org/camior/de-bruijn-bind/ -- David Sankel Sankel Software www.sankelsoftware.com 585 617 4748 (Office)

11 73

[config] consexpr workaround
by vicente.botet 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

Hi, in order to make easier the introduction of constexpr in a portable way I would like we add a Boost Config workarround. We can define some macros depending on whether BOOST_NO_CONSTEXPR is defined or not. #if defined(BOOST_NO_CONSTEXPR) #define BOOST_CONSTEXPR #define BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST const #else #define BOOST_CONSTEXPR constexpr #define BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST constexpr #endif For most of the constexpr functions or constructors BOOST_CONSTEXPR will work. constexpr tuple(); =versus= BOOST_CONSTEXPR tuple(); When used for static constants BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST is needed as we need to preserv the const keyword when consexpr is not available. static constexpr UIntType xor_mask = a; =versus= static BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST UIntType xor_mask = a; We could also add a STATIC_CONSTEXPR macro #define BOOST_STATIC_CONSTEXPR static BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST static constexpr UIntType xor_mask = a; =versus= BOOST_STATIC_CONSTEXPR UIntType xor_mask = a; For this case the existing macro BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT could be modified to use BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST when static const was used. static constexpr UIntType xor_mask = a; =versus= BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(UIntType, xor_mask = a); Can we introduce this workaround? Best regards, Vicente _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá http://viboes.blogspot.com/

6 17

Fwd: [Thread] Solution to conflict with MFC?
by Thorsten Ottosen 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

Hi Thread maintainers, Anthony speaks about a patch to make this work. Does anyone know where it is? And could it be applied? Thanks -Thorsten -------- Original Meddelelse -------- Subject: [Thread] Solution to conflict with MFC? Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:28:56 +0200 From: Christian Larsen <contact(a)dword.dk> Reply-To: boost-users(a)lists.boost.org To: boost-users(a)lists.boost.org Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.user Hello, I know this has been asked before, but I could not find a good solution. I'm experiencing problems with an application using both MFC and Boost.Thread. Specifically the assertion ASSERT(AfxGetModuleState() != AfxGetAppModuleState()); in AfxCoreInitModule() fails. I link Boost.Thread statically into a DLL in my project. From previous posts to this list and elsewhere, e.g. http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2009/04/46929.php, I see that the issue is caused by setting _pRawDllMain in tss_pe.cpp. Commenting this line does "solve" the problem, but I would rather not have to hack the Boost source code this way. It seems there is a patch somewhere for this problem (referred to in http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2009/04/47015.php) but it appears it never made it into the source. Is there any chance of this issue being solved in a better way? Best regards, Christian Larsen

5 9

[parameter] std proposal
by Lorenzo Caminiti 07 Jan '13

07 Jan '13

Hello all, Is there a C++ standard proposal for named parameter addition? I am looking for an "N-paper" for named parameters similar to N2081 for concepts, or N1962 for contracts. Thank you. -- Sent from my mobile device Lorenzo

6 8

[#pragma once]
by Sid Sacek 18 Nov '12

18 Nov '12

I've worked with the MSVC, Sun and GCC compilers. Each one of them supports #pragma once. Is there any reason to wrap this pragma within #ifdefs? Are there any compilers out there today that don't support this #pragma? #if defined( _MSC_VER ) && ( _MSC_VER >= 1020 ) # pragma once #endif Could we change this coding pattern so that it no longer looks like MSVC is being selfish? -Sid Sacek

17 20

[config] explicit call of operator templates / msvc bug workaround
by Stefan Strasser 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

Hi, is there already a macro in Boost.Config that allows you to insert the "template" keyword in the following code for those compilers that require it? struct functor{ template<class T> void operator()(); }; template<class F> void g(F f){ f.template operator()<int>(); //(1) works with GCC and comeau f.operator()<int>(); //(2) works with MSVC } this apparently only applies to operator calls. MSVC accepts both (1) and (2) for regular functions. (instantiating the operator template with an object of type T as argument, like mpl::for_each does, is not an option. I can't construct T.) thanks, Stefan

6 10