- Boost - lists.boost.org

Indexed set library
by Arkadiy Vertleyb 27 Jan '04

27 Jan '04

Hi all, I was just playing with the indexed set library (to provide alternative, set-based, implementation for our RTL tables), and my first impression is that it is very useful. I didn't have any problems in achieving my goal, either with the documentation (which is very clear), or with the library itself. Although I was using the simplest form of indexed_set (I only needed the "compatible predicate" feature missing from std::set), I still think that the idea of having multiple synchronized indexes is very useful (based on my past experience, when I could greatly benefit from such library), and that this library could eventialy become a great addition to Boost. I am wondering what the current state of the library is. I thought the formal review has been requested -- is this correct? Anything new since then? Arkadiy

1 0

Re: [Function] Implemented operator== and operator!=
by David Abrahams 27 Jan '04

27 Jan '04

Douglas Gregor <gregod(a)cs.rpi.edu> writes: > where deref does something like: > > template<typename Pointer, typename Pointee = typename Pointer::element_type> > struct do_deref > { I suggest template< typename Pointer , typename Pointee = typename pointee<Pointer>::type > struct do_deref { }; Or even leaving out the Pointee parameter altogether. See boost/pointee.hpp. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com

1 0

Re: 1.31.0 Progress (or lack thereof)
by David Abrahams 27 Jan '04

27 Jan '04

"John Maddock" <john(a)johnmaddock.co.uk> writes: >> Heh, not my department. I'm actually shocked that we're wedging >> is_abstract into the release branch. > > Normally a really bad idea, but in this case it's straight addition: it has > no impact on existing code, and I know that some folks who develop with the > release versions are asking for it. Sure, but it adds tests, which as we've seen subsequently add delays. It's a feature addition; no two ways about it. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com

1 0

Re: [administrative] Formal Review Process
by David Abrahams 27 Jan '04

27 Jan '04

Thomas Witt <witt(a)acm.org> writes: >> b. Use a regular rotating schedule for review managers. If you're >> not going to be available when your time comes up, it should be >> your responsibility to find someone to swap with. > > From my experience strict rotating works almost never due to time > constraints or library topic. Yeah, but the result is that people would know well in advance when they're scheduled and what library they're scheduled for, and... > I am unsure whether this is not too much pressure to put it on highly > skilled volunteers. ... it would take the pressure off of *you* to find replacement reviewers. But if you're willing to keep that part of the pressure, so much the better for the rest of us. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com

1 0

Re: [administrative] Formal Review Process
by David Abrahams 27 Jan '04

27 Jan '04

Thomas Witt <witt(a)acm.org> writes: >> I don't think automating would help here. >> How about having the email' addresses of all the review managers on >> the formal_review_process.html page? >> (and update this page as review managers are added or deleted) > > I think having names and email adresses on the website is at least > controversial, if only for mail address harvesters. Though it might be > a good idea to have the author care for a manager. This could be done > on a mailing list. Mail addresses are easy enough to obfuscate in ways that are transparent to humans. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com

1 0

Another compressed_pair issue
by David Abrahams 26 Jan '04

26 Jan '04

Just for the sake of completeness, it would probably be a good idea to note that the use of compressed_pair wouldn't be transparent on an implementation where a class with virtual functions can be empty. Of course, I doubt any such implementation exists, but it is possible. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com

1 0