- Boost - lists.boost.org

RE: [boost] Re: serialization of objects with overloaded new/delete
by Andreas Brinck 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

Hi, > For this to work, one needs a SFINAE compiler, right? yes, perhaps the code could be modified to use the boost::enable_if utility to make it a bit clearer what's going on. > I faintly remember that early versions of the documentation (during > review) described a completely different type of support for classes > with operator new. I don't recall the details but I believe > that one was > able to specialize a template for types with operator new. > While being > slightly more cumbersome, this sort of support would work > with virtually > any compiler, not just the ones that support SFINAE. It would be > interesting to hear why this kind of operator new support was > discontinued later. I think you answered your own question. Judging from the lack of responses to my post, serializing objects with overloaded new doesn't seem to be important to most people. I guess the maintainers of the library didn't want to complicate the interface to accomodate a small minority of users. The SFINAE principle is probably the best way to handle it right now. Regards /Andreas Brinck ########################################### This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange. For more information, connect to http://www.f-secure.com/

2 1

[call traits] patch for Borland BCB6
by AlisdairM 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

The version check in the existing Borland workaround has not been kept up to date - see patch below: cvs diff -w boost\detail\call_traits.hpp (in directory D:\Projects\boost) Index: boost/detail/call_traits.hpp =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/boost/detail/call_traits.hpp,v retrieving revision 1.13 diff -w -r1.13 call_traits.hpp 94c94 < #if defined(__BORLANDC__) && (__BORLANDC__ <= 0x560) --- > #if BOOST_WORKAROUND( __BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT( 0x564 ) ) -- AlisdairM

2 1

Re: [boost] Re: Boost Array Initialization Technique
by brangdon＠cix.compulink.co.uk 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

In-Reply-To: <d80vqg$i5u$1(a)sea.gmane.org> daniel(a)calamity.org.uk (Daniel James) wrote (abridged): > Dave's email program has broken the threading Has it? In my browser my comments are posted to the intended part of the thread. Some of the replies have gone amiss, and some haven't. Specifically Jonathan Turkanis's replies to me have been misthreaded, but his replies to other people have too. I figured that was his email program, not mine. Are you seeing something different? My apologies to the list if so. If there is a diagnosable problem with my software I can contact the author. Feel free to reply directly if this is off-topic. -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.

3 2

Borland patch for Boost Test
by AlisdairM 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

THe following patch should allow Borland BCB6 to pass the boost_check_equal_str test case. The problem appears to be pointer-decay of arrays. cvs diff -w boost\test\test_tools.hpp (in directory D:\Projects\boost) Index: boost/test/test_tools.hpp =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/boost/test/test_tools.hpp,v retrieving revision 1.53 diff -w -r1.53 test_tools.hpp 285a286,296 > #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x564)) > template<typename T, std::size_t N > > struct print_log_value< T[N] > { > void operator()( std::ostream& ostr, T const* t ) > { > ostr << t; // by default print the value > } > }; > > #endif > 333a345,354 > #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x564)) > // Borland suffers premature pointer decay passing arrays by reference > template<typename T, std::size_t N > > struct print_helper_t< T[ N ] > { > explicit print_helper_t( T const * t ) : m_t( t ) {} > > T const * m_t; > }; > > #endif -- AlisdairM

2 1

boost book error
by Dirk Griffioen 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

Hi, At the moment I get the following error when I try to run my boostbook setup: xslt-xsltproc bin\msvc\debug\threading-multi\moip.doxygen.docbook xslt-xsltproc-dir html\HTML.manifest warning: failed to load external entity "http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/html/chunk.xsl" compilation error: file file:///G%3A/dev_/stl/boost_1_32_0/tools/boostbook/xsl/html.xsl line 8 element import xsl:import : unable to load http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/html/chunk.xsl warning: failed to load external entity "http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/html/chunk-common.xs Last saturday everything was fine. There's no firewall etc between me and http:// Has anything canged? Should I update to a newer version? Hope anyone can help, Dirk Griffioen

1 0

RE: [boost] Re: Re: Typeof: Review result
by Brian Braatz 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] > On Behalf Of Jonathan Turkanis > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 4:53 PM > To: boost(a)lists.boost.org > Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Typeof: Review result > > Brian Braatz wrote: > > > Here is an idea: what-cha think- We should add a "Wow" factor to the > > lib review template. > > > > I dunno, maybe something like > > > > "Rate the WOW factor of this library:(1-5)" > > > > (now that I have made the suggestion, here comes the controversy > > (grin)) > > > > the question then becomes what if a library, gets all 1's. Does it > > still get accepted? I say no, there are plenty of "YET-ANOTHER-X" > libraries > > out there already. > > > > I say, (more controversy) that something can have a semi-boring > > functional use, but it's implementation, at the very least should have > > some "Wow" in it. > > Most people seems to agree we need a bigint library. Somehow I'm skeptical > we > can find one with a WOW factor above 2. ;-) > > Jonathan > [Brian Braatz Writes:] Hmm.. ON a serious note. It might be worth just "Capturing" the WOW factor, and using that as one piece of the "do we accept" or not puzzle.

1 0

RE: [boost] Re: Re: Typeof: Review result
by Brian Braatz 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] > On Behalf Of Jonathan Turkanis > > Brian Braatz wrote: > > > Here is an idea: what-cha think- We should add a "Wow" factor to the > > lib review template. > > > > I dunno, maybe something like > > > > "Rate the WOW factor of this library:(1-5)" > > > > (now that I have made the suggestion, here comes the controversy > > (grin)) > > > > the question then becomes what if a library, gets all 1's. Does it > > still get accepted? I say no, there are plenty of "YET-ANOTHER-X" > libraries > > out there already. > > > > I say, (more controversy) that something can have a semi-boring > > functional use, but it's implementation, at the very least should have > > some "Wow" in it. > > Most people seems to agree we need a bigint library. Somehow I'm skeptical > we > can find one with a WOW factor above 2. ;-) > > Jonathan > [Brian Braatz Writes:] Oh I dunno, to me a big int is EXCITING (grin). :) (yes your point is in alignment with the second point I made against my own suggestion)

1 0

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Boost Array Initialization Technique
by brangdon＠cix.compulink.co.uk 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

In-Reply-To: <d80h47$irf$1(a)sea.gmane.org> technews(a)kangaroologic.com (Jonathan Turkanis) wrote (abridged): > array can't be given constructors without sacrificing the aggregate > initialization syntax. OK... although I'd rather have constructors than aggregate initialisation syntax. If the problem is performance, surely the compiler can optimise away the difference (given that it's a standard library component with known semantics)? Anyway, it sounds like this battle is already lost. Is there a rational for not allowing zero-sized arrays? What is the intended semantics of: array<int> a; // Or array<int,0>. assert( a.empty() ); ? Isn't this kind of thing likely to occur in generic template code? -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.

4 4

RE: [boost] Re: Typeof: Review result
by Brian Braatz 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] > On Behalf Of David Abrahams > > "Brian Braatz" <brianb(a)rmtg.com> writes: > > > [Brian Braatz Writes:] > > > > What are the expectations here? I find myself in this spot > > frequently. I see something up for review, and it ALWAYS happens at > > the worst time for me. I look at it, but I tend to not say much unless > > I can REALLY devote the time needed to give the library the proper > > amount of review time. > > > > There might be "no answer" to the expectations questions. But I would > > be curious how others feel about this. > > > > I.e. If I only have an hour or two to look at something- is it still > > useful for me to submit a review? > [David Abrahams Writes:] > Whenever you feel like you can say something useful. I often have > something useful to say after looking at the first few pages of > documentation. > [Brian Braatz Writes:] Good advice. After contemplating that advice, I took 20 mins to look at the function types lib- and immediately saw some issues (as you said, after the first few pages). (will write them up this evening). > > Part of the problem I have is an enormous respect for what a boost > > library is. It is not something one slaps together just to get their > > name in lights (to me at least). A boost library makes you go > > "Wow". if it doesn't make you go "Wow" it doesn't belong in boost. > > :) > > > But if I cannot devote the time needed to review something DEEPLY, I > > feel it is somewhat disrespectful for me to participate. > > > > Do you guys think I am wrong to feel this way? Or do you find the > > opinions of a quick review valuable? > > I do. > [David Abrahams Writes:] > Personally, I think too many libraries have been accepted recently > with insufficient scrutiny. There are certainly a few I would have > liked to have seen challenged along the lines of "this doesn't make me > go wow," or "does the world really need this library?" [Brian Braatz Writes:] Hmm.. Here is an idea: what-cha think- We should add a "Wow" factor to the lib review template. I dunno, maybe something like "Rate the WOW factor of this library:(1-5)" (now that I have made the suggestion, here comes the controversy (grin)) the question then becomes what if a library, gets all 1's. Does it still get accepted? I say no, there are plenty of "YET-ANOTHER-X" libraries out there already. I say, (more controversy) that something can have a semi-boring functional use, but it's implementation, at the very least should have some "Wow" in it. hmmm... I will continue to contemplate these thoughts. Hard to see the dark side is....

3 2

[mscv config]
by Thorsten Ottosen 06 Jun '05

06 Jun '05

Hi, Is there any good reason that VC++ is set to warn about ADL by default? Otherwise, we should put the equivalent of <toolset>msvc <cxxflags>/wd4675 into the main configuration for those compilers -Thorsten -- Thorsten Ottosen ---------------------------- www.dezide.com http://www.cs.aau.dk/index2.php?content=Research/mi www.boost.org www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/

3 5