- Boost - lists.boost.org

Re:RE: [boost] Re: FORMAL Review of "Output Formatter" library -
by Reece Dunn 22 Sep '04

22 Sep '04

Robert Ramey wrote: > > Although my library is still under review, I am re-architecturing it > >based on the feedback thus far. This post is the code associated with >what > > was the delimiters/formatters part of the library. They are now given >the > > better name of "decorators". > >If your making changes in the library already, maybe you might want to >consider withdrawing it from the formal review and re-submitting it after >you've made all the changes you want to make. It might be easier (for you >as well as for reviewers) than going through the whole process more than >once. IIUC, the serialization library went through several reviews before being accepted. This is the best place to get decent feedback on a library from the most people. If I withdraw the library, there may be a comment that I miss (because the reviewer has not posted it since the library is withdrawn) that makes an important point. I have had lots of feedback regarding the names of the various components. The changes I have made are an attempt to pre-emptively address these issues and to say that I am taking all the comments into consideration. Regards, Reece _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

6 11

Re: [boost] RE: OutFrmt lib design questions
by Reece Dunn 22 Sep '04

22 Sep '04

John Torjo wrote: >>>>2. If primary target is collection formatting wouldn't it be better to >>>>name library "collection formats something"? >>> >>>This is a good idea. The name is from when the library just had output >>>support, thus the "outfmt" directory in the sandbox. I am thinking about >>>moving to a "formatter" directory. What do other people think? >> >> >>I'm -1. Having "format" and "formatter" is confusing. The name should >>somehow mention that you format data structures. > >I second that - 'formatter' is just confusing. >However, something like 'coll_format' or 'sequence_format' - I'm ok with >them. 'coll_format' has got my vote :) Regards, Reece _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

3 2

Regression: avoid cleanup of binaries
by Stefan Slapeta 21 Sep '04

21 Sep '04

After the regression tests there seems to be a total cleanup of the binaries. Is it possible to avoid this in some way? (maybe specifying --incremental is the solution, but I would rather guess letting away this option should clean up the binaries _before_ the test run, shouldn't it?!?) Stefan

3 4

[shared_ptr] InterlockedIncrement rocks!
by John Torjo 21 Sep '04

21 Sep '04

Hi Peter, I just took your implementation (http://www.pdimov.com/cpp/shared_count_x86_exp2.hpp) for shared_ptr and use it now in win32gui (upcoming v1.4.2). Using Interlocked* for win32 totally rocks! From my tests - Interlocked* are very fast. They're about twice as slow as a raw increment (or my tests are wrong;)). From what I see - I think you can certainly merge them into boost::shared_ptr. Maybe users can select the old version or this Interlocked* version with a certain macro - like BOOST_SHARED_PTR_USE_INTERLOCKED. Also, why not including windows.h directly, like this: #define WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN #include <windows.h> <side-note> From my tests it seems your version as is now fails to link for gcc (unresolved external _InterlockedIncrement/_InterlockedDecrement). However, if #including <windows.h> and use InterlockedIncrement/Decrement - they work. </side-note> Best, John -- John Torjo -- john(a)torjo.com Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal -- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all -- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ -- v1.4 - save_dlg - true binding of your data to UI controls! + easily add validation rules (win32gui/examples/smart_dlg)

2 1

RE: [boost] [shared_ptr] InterlockedIncrement rocks!
by Puverle, Tomas (IT) 21 Sep '04

21 Sep '04

> >>Also, why not including windows.h directly, like this: > >>#define WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN > >>#include <windows.h> > > > > > > I believe WIN32_EXTRA_LEAN may be even better. > > Just a thought - there is no WIN32_EXTRA_LEAN on vc7.1 Yes you are correct. I misremembered VC_EXTRALEAN, which is a similar macro, but for MFC only. Tom -------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

1 0

Re: [boost] Re: [assign] fixes for msvc, msvc-stlport and vc7
by JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z 21 Sep '04

21 Sep '04

----- Mensaje original ----- De: Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto(a)cs.auc.dk> Fecha: Martes, Septiembre 21, 2004 9:03 pm Asunto: [boost] Re: [assign] fixes for msvc, msvc-stlport and vc7 > Hi Joaquin, > [...] > > | 2. list_insert::operator()(T t) has been changed to accept > | a const reference instead. > > I have made this change as > > #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC, <= 1200) > > template< class T > > list_inserter& operator()( const T& t ) > #else > template< class T > > list_inserter& operator()( T t ) > #endif As you wrote it, the workaround applies only to MSVC 6.0. Let's wait for the next test cycle to see if it has to be extended to MSVC 7.0 as well. > > | With these changes, all tests build, though three of them > | crash at run-time (list_inserter, list_of and multi_index_container) > > ok, this is much better than before! some of the test a big and > fat and do > some tricky conversions...but just having the > basic stuff working is great! > > |I've got two questions: > | > |1. Could somebody (the author, I guess) validate these changes > |for commit? > > I have comitted them. > > |2. list_inserter follows a strange convention (IMHO) of not > |forcing template params to be const references in its various > |copy ctors and assignment operators, for instance: > | > |list_inserter( Function fun ); > |template< class T > > |list_inserter& operator=( T r ); > | > |Any reason for this approach? I don't know if this can pose > |problems, but to me having these qualified with const & seems > |like the usual way. > > yes, the bitches are char[N] and wchar_t[N] which does not convert > to char* > and wchar_t* otherwise. this comes up in simple stuff like > > vector<string> = list_of( "foo" )( "goobar" ); Ummm, I see. The fact is that here lies, I think, the reason for the three remaining crashes, all on calls to multi-argument versions of list_inserter::operator(). Maybe I'll give this some thinking over if I have some spare time tomorrow. > > of course, the Function arg could be const Function&, but is there any > difference in inline code? I think this can involve an extra copy under some circumstances, ans some compilers might not optimize this away. But in general I agree with you little is gained by having const Function &. > > Muchos gracias for the patch! Velbekomme :) Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

1 0

RE: [boost] Re: static_cast and const
by Ben Hutchings 21 Sep '04

21 Sep '04

Jonathan Turkanis <technews(a)kangaroologic.com> wrote: > "David Abrahams" <dave(a)boost-consulting.com> wrote in message > news:umzzl3pvk.fsf@boost-consulting.com... > > Richard Hadsell <hadsell(a)blueskystudios.com> writes: > > > > > Jonathan Turkanis wrote: > > > > > >>When I was writing it I initially typed 'const_cast', but then > > >>thought to myself: why use my big guns if I don't have to? ;-) > > >> > > > For clarity -- to tell the reader that you intended to modify the > > > const-ness. > > > > static_cast is a bigger gun than const_cast. At least const_cast > > cant violate data layout, and unless there is actually a constant > > object, won't result in undefined behavior. > > Good point. I guess part of the reason I avoid const_cast whenever > possible is that people look upon it suspiciously, even if it's only > adding cv-qualification. Maybe people should be more suspicious of > static_cast. If you want to make an implicit conversion explicit, use boost::implicit_cast.

3 3

dynamic scoping emulation - was Re: Lexical cast suggestion
by Jonathan Graehl 21 Sep '04

21 Sep '04

> > >Nope, there's only one global locale, it's not per-thread. If it's >per-thread, you can do > > std::locale::tss_global(std::locale("koi8-r")); > // do some work with program_options > std::locale::tss_global(std::locale("")); > I do this all the time (but using a scope guard), for globals I've declared thread-local. This essentially simulates dynamic scoping (which I'd prefer to see supported directly by the language, as an alternative to lexical scoping). Perhaps a Boost library for dynamically scoped properties would be nice? -Jonathan

1 0

RE: [boost] Avoiding warning on the do{...}while(0) macroimplementation trick
by Ben Hutchings 21 Sep '04

21 Sep '04

Ivan Vecerina wrote: > I've noticed discussions about this a couple of years ago. > For assert-style macros that include multiple statements, > a common idiom is to enclose the statements in a do{...}while(0) > dummy loop. This makes the macro behave like a single statement. > > A problem with some compilers (notably VC7.x) is that this > triggers a warning (C4127: conditional expression is constant). > > The workaround adopted by boost is to automatically disable > this warning -- which however can be legitimate and useful > in user code. > > I think I have found a better 'always-false' condition which > does not trigger a warning, and works at least in VC7.1: > do{ }while(__LINE__==-1) > > Do you see a problem with this approach? <snip> It works in VC++ 7.1 if you enable "edit and continue", because this results in non-standard expansion of the __LINE__ macro to an expression that isn't a compile-time constant. In general it doesn't work.

3 2

[assign] MSVC support?
by Aleksey Gurtovoy 21 Sep '04

21 Sep '04

Is assign library unusable on MSVC < 7.1? If so, could the maintainer please mark it up as such in "boost/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml"? Thanks, -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering

2 1