- Boost - lists.boost.org

[utility][assert]
by Yechezkel Mett 25 Apr '12

25 Apr '12

I noticed that when BOOST_ENABLE_ASSERT_HANDLER is defined, BOOST_ASSERT calls boost::assertion_failed whether or not NDEBUG is defined, but BOOST_ASSERT_MSG calls boost::assertion_failed_msg only if NDEBUG is not defined. Is there a reason for this difference?

1 0

[exception] applying patch for issue #6349
by David Deakins 24 Apr '12

24 Apr '12

Hi Emil, Since the issue in item #6349 is disrupting the Windows CE test results for many libraries, do you mind if I go ahead and apply the patch attached to that item? Thanks, -Dave

2 1

[Iterator] Fixing the default reference type of transform_iterator (#5127)
by Michel Morin 24 Apr '12

24 Apr '12

The default reference type of transform_iterator should be boost::result_of<const UnaryFunction(Iterator::reference)> rather than boost::result_of<UnaryFunction(Iterator::reference)> since the dereference operator of transform_iterator is a const member function. Ticket #5127 describes this bug https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/5127 and the ticket has a patch. Jeff, could you apply the patch, if it looks OK? Regards, Michel

3 7

[contract] assertion requirements as meta-functions or not?
by lcaminiti 24 Apr '12

24 Apr '12

Hello all, Boost.Contract allows to specify "assertion requirements": /assertion-condition/, requires /assertion-requirement/ If the requirement is not met then the assertion condition is neither compiled nor checked at run-time. Question: Shall the assertion-requirement be a nullary boolean meta-function or just a static boolean value? For example: CONTRACT_FUNCTION( template( typename T ) requires( boost::LessThanComparable<T> ) (T const&) (min) ( (T const&) x, (T const&) y ) postcondition( auto result = return, x < y ? result == x : result == y, requires boost::has_equal_to<T>::value // static boolean ) ) { return x < y ? x : y; // OK: T is less than comparable `<`. } For now, the assertion requirement is a static boolean value so it can be more easily manipulated (using !, &&, ||, etc instead of mpl::not, mpl::and, mpl::or, etc). However, is there any strong reason for marking the assertion requirement a nullary boolean meta-function instead like the following code? x < y ? result == x : result == y, requires boost::has_equal_to<T> // meta-function Thanks. --Lorenzo -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/boost-contract-assertion-requirements-as… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

3 5

[Fusion] Patch: fixing some test failures on clang
by Michel Morin 24 Apr '12

24 Apr '12

The following tests of Boost.Fusion fail on clang trunk in a C++11 mode with libc++. * io.test * deque_construction.test * deque_misc.test * std_tuple_iterator.test * invoke.test Attached a patch for fixing two failures (io.test and std_tuple_iterator.test) of them. Regards, Michel

2 1

Search a vector of tuples?
by Robert Dailey 23 Apr '12

23 Apr '12

Is there a method in the boost library to iterate a vector of boost::tuple objects, comparing the 1st element in the tuple of each tuple to a value that I specify? My tuple is setup like so: typedef boost::tuple<int, int, char const*> Tuple; typedef std::vector<Tuple> ErrorStringMap; ErrorStringMap mystrings = tuple_list_of (10, "10", "ten") (20, "20", "twenty") (30, "30", "thirty") (10, "10", "ten"); I want to search the vector of tuples and do something with every tuple that has the number 10 as the first element in the tuple.

7 15

[concept_check] addable
by lcaminiti 23 Apr '12

23 Apr '12

Hello all, Does this Addable concept definition make sense to you? Is there any error? #include <boost/concept_check.hpp> template<typename T> struct Addable { // User-defined concept. BOOST_CONCEPT_USAGE(Addable) { return_type(x + y); // Check addition `T operator+(T x, T y)`. } private: T x; T y; void return_type(T const&); // Used to check addition returns type `T`. }; It's not making Sun's linker happy: "/opt/sunstudio12.1/bin/CC" -g -library=stlport4 -features=tmplife -features=tmplrefstatic -library=stlport4 -m64 -KPIC -o "/scratch2/kbelco/boost/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/local_function/test/typeof_seq.test/sun-5.10/debug/address-model-64/stdlib-sun-stlport/typeof_seq" "/scratch2/kbelco/boost/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/local_function/test/typeof_seq.test/sun-5.10/debug/address-model-64/stdlib-sun-stlport/typeof_seq.o" -Bdynamic -lrt -Bstatic -Bdynamic Undefined???first referenced symbol ??? in file void Addable<int>::return_type(const int&) /scratch2/kbelco/boost/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/local_function/test/typeof_seq.test/sun-5.10/debug/address-model-64/stdlib-sun-stlport/typeof_seq.o ld: fatal: Symbol referencing errors. No output written to /scratch2/kbelco/boost/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/local_function/test/typeof_seq.test/sun-5.10/debug/address-model-64/stdlib-sun-stlport/typeof_seq But the error might also be somewhere else in the program that checks the concept, I'm still debugging... Thanks a lot. --Lorenzo -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/boost-concept-check-addable-tp4572138p45… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2 5

[filesystem] #6521 Directory listing using C++11 range-based for loops
by Beman Dawes 23 Apr '12

23 Apr '12

Ticket #6521 requests adding: class directory{ path p_; public: inline directory(path p):p_(p){} directory_iterator begin(){ return directory_iterator(p_); } directory_iterator end(){ return directory_iterator(); } }; so that that a range-based for loop can be used: for (auto itr : directory(".")) { cout << itr.path() << endl; } The above works as expected on GCC 4.6 and VC++ 11 beta. Is that the best way for filesystem directory iteration to support range-based for? Provide a class directory_tree for recursive iteration? --Beman

4 13

1.50 release calendar
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 23 Apr '12

23 Apr '12

Hi, I would like to know the 1.50 release calendar so that I can plan with Anthony Williams the merge to release of Boost.Thread of version 3. Which is the last day to merge to release a big change? Thanks for all, Vicente

3 3

[range] Question about adapted range safety given C++11 auto
by Beman Dawes 22 Apr '12

22 Apr '12

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3350.html claims: "Boost's range library focuses on defining a set of Range concepts that allow Containers to be Ranges. Because Containers are heavy-weight, this forces Boost to use references for all of their uses of Ranges, including Ranges that are captured by Range Adapters. This worked fine in C++98, where users couldn't name the types of the Range Adapters in order to declare local variables, but with C++11's auto keyword, users can now save adapted ranges. Since Boost's adapted ranges capture references to their arguments, which can be temporaries, this is no longer a safe design." Is this claim correct? If so, what's the real-world impact? --Beman

4 3