- Boost - lists.boost.org

Re: [boost] FOREACH / C++ "for" proposal
by brangdon＠cix.compulink.co.uk 10 May '05

10 May '05

In-Reply-To: <427FB7C9.9030708(a)systemhaus-gruppe.de> sstrasser(a)systemhaus-gruppe.de (Stefan Strasser) wrote (abridged): > > Although it doesn't seem to say whether "vec" is hoisted, and the > > given translation suggests that it isn't. > > maybe "hoisting" was not the right word, I only know it from a post by > eric. "Hoisting" is fine for the purposes of this thread. > what I meant was copy-the-value-of-end()-at-the-start-of-the-loop. > and the proposal does that, see 3. It says end(vec) is hoisted, but doesn't say whether vec itself is hoisted. In "for (int i: vec )" is vec evaluated once or twice? I believe BOOST_FOR evaluates it exactly once. The translation given in the proposal is: using std::begin; // enable ADL using std::end; // ditto for( auto __begin = begin(vec), __end = end(vec); __begin != __end; ++__begin ) { int i = *__begin; std::cout << i; } which apparently evaluates vec twice. A variable __end is introduced explicitly for end(vec), but there is no analogous variable __vec. I guess we ought to find out for sure which it will be, and then make BOOST_FOR do the same. -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.

2 1

Re: [boost] FOREACH / C++ "for" proposal
by brangdon＠cix.compulink.co.uk 10 May '05

10 May '05

In-Reply-To: <427F7635.4010303(a)systemhaus-gruppe.de> sstrasser(a)systemhaus-gruppe.de (Stefan Strasser) wrote (abridged): > you might be interested in this document from the new c++0x mailing: > > http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2005/n1796.html > > for the naming discussion, proposed syntax is for(int i : vec) > (personally I don't care if it's called BOOST_FOREACH or BOOST_FOR) I don't mind if it is BOOST_FOR_EACH or BOOST_FOR :-) > I've questioned in the past if it is expected behaviour to do > "hoisting". the proposal does. Although it doesn't seem to say whether "vec" is hoisted, and the given translation suggests that it isn't. I imagine that is an oversight in the presentation rather than the intended semantics. Interestingly he gives an example of an adaptor which could potentially be evaluated multiple times. The proposal says: The user is required to include the standard header <iterator> in which the default version of begin()/end() is defined which seems wrong to me. #include<vector> ought to be enough to use for with std::vector, if it's a built-in facility. -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.

3 2

[gcc regressions] what's up with them
by Thorsten Ottosen 10 May '05

10 May '05

Hi, When I look at something like http://tinyurl.com/9v2as I assume the error is not in my library. Should/Can we do anything to fix it? -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 12

[boost.assign] help with borland, sunpro & cw 8.3
by Thorsten Ottosen 10 May '05

10 May '05

Hi All, If anyone thinks these compilers are important to support in boost.assign, I will need your help to make these regressions run. Otherwise I will flag the errors as "expected failure". -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

boost log lib 1.3 compile failure w/gcc
by Neal Becker 10 May '05

10 May '05

I am looking at boost log library 1.3. I tried to compile "simple" example with gcc-3.4.3 (linux), here's what happens: g++ -o main main.cpp -I ../../../../ In file included from ../../../../boost/log/detail/ts.hpp:37, from ../../../../boost/log/log_fwd.hpp:34, from ../../../../boost/log/log.hpp:36, from ../../../../boost/log/log_impl.hpp:33, from main.cpp:4: ../../../../boost/log/detail/ts_posix.hpp: In constructor `boost::logging::threading::mutex::mutex()': ../../../../boost/log/detail/ts_posix.hpp:54: error: no matching function for call to `pthread_mutex_t::._10(int)' /usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h:87: note: candidates are: pthread_mutex_t::._10() /usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h:87: note: pthread_mutex_t::._10(const pthread_mutex_t&) In file included from ../../../../boost/log/log_impl.hpp:33, from main.cpp:4: ../../../../boost/log/log.hpp: At global scope: ../../../../boost/log/log.hpp:277: error: declaration of `bool boost::logging::logger_keeper_is_enabled<is_compile_time, is_enabled>::is_enabled(boost::logging::logger&) const' ../../../../boost/log/log.hpp:276: error: shadows template parm `bool is_enabled' ../../../../boost/log/log.hpp:277: error: declaration of `bool boost::logging::logger_keeper_is_enabled<is_compile_time, is_enabled>::is_enabled(boost::logging::logger&) const' ../../../../boost/log/log.hpp:276: error: shadows template parm `bool is_enabled' C

2 4

Re: [dynamic_bitset] Stream extraction failures on CodeWarrior 9.4
by Gennaro Prota 10 May '05

10 May '05

--- Howard Hinnant <hinnant(a)twcny.rr.com> wrote: > I know the Metrowerks library inside/out. I started looking at this > last night but I'm pretty lost in the test code. I see. It's not the clearest code in the world. It is logically simple but a bit hard to debug due to the high number of combinations (and workarounds) involved. > > Here's what I have so far: > > Failure inside of: > > template<typename Stream, typename String> > static void stream_extractor(Bitset& b, > Stream& is, > String& str > ) > > at: > > if(stream_was_good) > BOOST_CHECK(remainder == str.substr(after_digits)); > > At this point remainder is a zero-length string, after_digits is 0 and > str is length 359. That's odd. after_digits is the position of the first character that follows 1s and 0s. The 359-characters str parameter should be the long string defined in bitset.hpp, thus you should have at least after_digits==359. I may be wrong because I don't have the necessary time and calm to check the code from the office but it might be worth examining this part. In particular if, for some reason, is_one_or_zero() is immediately returning false. > > On entry to this routine b has length 1 and that element is true. I > believe, but I am not positive that str is unmodified through this > test, despite being passed by reference (as opposed to const ref). > > I've so far been unable to determine the state of the stream is on > entry. But it looks completely hosed by the time the BOOST_CHECK is > triggered. For example the iostate has the value 0x7E even though the > highest numerical state it can possibly have is 0x07. That's odd too. I'll continue reading this thread via mail. Please keep me informed and sorry for not being able to dig into this myself. -- Genny Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html

1 0

Standard Library Extension TR2 Call for Proposals
by Beman Dawes 10 May '05

10 May '05

The C++ Standards Committee has begun work on a second library technical report. A Call for Proposals is available at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1810.html --Beman

1 0

When 1.33 is released...
by Gordon Smith 10 May '05

10 May '05

As soon a 1.33 is released can we up the version number to 1_33_1 or such like in CVS, as this will make switching between HEAD and gold a lot easier? Gordon.

2 3

two boost.org doc section requests
by Max Khesin 10 May '05

10 May '05

1) Boost version in which the library was introduced. 2) The required header and object lib. I think these will improve the usability of documentation. Thanks, Max. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

1 0

Allocators in VC 8.0?
by Doug Gregor 10 May '05

10 May '05

Does anyone know of any weird behavior from allocators in VC 8.0? The Function library uses allocators when available, but the two tests of allocators (allocator_test and function_test) are failing on VC 8.0 (but not 7.1). From the config info, I see that BOOST_HAS_PARTIAL_STD_ALLOCATOR is defined but BOOST_NO_STD_ALLOCATOR is not (boost::function uses the latter). The actual failure is here: http://tinyurl.com/dq3lh Could someone with access to VC 8.0 (beta 2, I guess) check to see what is happening here? Doug

4 3