- Boost - lists.boost.org

[test] Fixtures from file
by Alexander Arhipenko 13 Apr '12

13 Apr '12

Hi, I need to open fixture file (e.g. the one that contains initial data for testing) in a BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE. Could you please tell: * Whether it's possible? * If possible, than what is the most preferable way to do it? JFYI: We need to have something like python django fixtures. Some details: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/testing/?from=olddocs#django.t… Regards

2 2

[lexical_cast] char types and UDTs
by Eric Niebler 13 Apr '12

13 Apr '12

Say I have a wide-character, user-defined, streamable type like boost::wssub_match from the regex library (or now std::wssub_match). It's basically a pair of wstring iterators. It's stream insertion operator is defined like this: template <class charT, class ST, class BiIter> basic_ostream<charT, ST>& operator<<(basic_ostream<charT, ST>& os, const sub_match<BiIter>& m) { return (os << m.str()); } If it's not obvious, it requires that the stream's character type is the same as the BiIter's value_type. If I were to try to use boost::lexical_cast to cast this to something, it won't work. That's because lexical_cast doesn't know about wssub_match, and so doesn't know that its character type should be wchar_t. Instead, it defaults to char for any unknown types, and doesn't give a way to override this. There is an internal trait, boost::detail::stream_char, that lexical_cast uses to determine what the character type of the source is (if any). It's specialized on only a fixed number of types. Since it's an implementation detail, it can't be used to extend the set of types. Also, I tried specializing it. In past versions of Boost that just worked, but it doesn't anymore. I think being able to extend lexical_cast to support types like (std|boost)::wssub_match is an essential feature. Thoughts on how to get there from here? -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

5 14

[lockfree] tagged_ptr as a separate library
by Philipp Moeller 12 Apr '12

12 Apr '12

In the review of lockfree it has been suggested that tagged_ptr should make it into the public API of lockfree. Wouldn't it make sense to move it into a separate library entirely? It would possibly get more exposure and cross-platform ports. The technique itself also requires some extra documentation. And it might find it's way into a release earlier than lock-free itself. Philipp Moeller

5 7

Refactoring a library for header-only or linked library?
by Paul A. Bristow 12 Apr '12

12 Apr '12

I am considering refactoring a (potential Boost) library separating declarations and definitions into two sets of files with the objective of reducing compilation times and allow it to be used as header-only or linking with a pre-built library. Is there is best/Boost way of doing this? Is there a Boost library that I should use as a model? ASIO? Should I call the definition files .cpp or .ipp? Should definition files go in libs/src or in boost/? How should I control the header-only/library switch? View and suggestions? Thanks Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow(a)hetp.u-net.com

2 3

[test] Ticket #6624 (Add a BOOST_<level>_NE_COLLECTIONS testing tool)
by Daniel Trebbien 12 Apr '12

12 Apr '12

Hello, I have been unable to reach the current maintainer of Boost.Test regarding Ticket #6624: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6624 Would someone like to review my patch for this small enhancement and commit it? Daniel Trebbien

3 4

[svn/git/hg] Support for modularization of Boost?
by Beman Dawes 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

As far as I can see, scaling Boost up to a much larger number of libraries implies decentralization and decoupling, probably in the form of per-library modules or something similar. Modularization seems to have been missed in the discussions of Subversion, Git, and Mercurial. Do distributed version control systems in general and Git in particular have any important advantages/disadvantages over svn for highly modularized projects? Please, let's not waste everyone's time with a rehash of general DCVS vs CCVS pros and cons. We have beat that to death. Let's focus this thread on modularization support, particularly as it applies to Boost. Thanks, --Beman

13 20

boost::filesystem3::path::wchar_t_codecvt_facet()
by Renato Tegon Forti 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

Hi All, Anyone can help me to understand, and fix this error: gcc.link bin/gcc-4.6/release/threading-multi/doksafe_process_engine /usr/bin/ld: bin/gcc-4.6/release/threading-multi/main.o: undefined reference to symbol 'boost::filesystem3::path::wchar_t_codecvt_facet()' /usr/bin/ld: note: 'boost::filesystem3::path::wchar_t_codecvt_facet()' is defined in DSO /3rdparty/Boost/1.46.1/lib/libboost_filesystem.so.1.46.1 so try adding it to the linker command line /3rdparty/Boost/1.46.1/lib/libboost_filesystem.so.1.46.1: could not read symbols: Invalid operation collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Thanks

1 0

Two days left to save on BoostCon / C++Now! 2012
by Dave Abrahams 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

Just a quick reminder to everyone that early-bird registration closes at the end of this week. After Friday, the price goes up by $100. Spots are limited and registrations have been coming in faster than in past years. http://cppnow.org Cheers! -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

1 0

[range] adaptors vs. rvalue to lvalue& binding
by Arno Schödl 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

Hello, ideally I would like to use range-adapted lvalue ranges like any other lvalue ranges. Writing it down naively, as below, does not compile because LoadRefRange takes (and should take?) the range it modifies by lvalue&, while adaptor expressions are rvalues. template<typename Range> void modifies_range( Range& rng ); A a[5]; main() { // modifies all elements of a modifies_range ( a ); // modifies all elements (except for one) of a // adaptor is rvalue, does not compile: modifies_range ( boost::range::join( boost::adaptors::slice( a, 0, 1 ), boost::adaptors::slice( a, 2, countof(a) ) ) ); // compiles, but ugly: auto rng=boost::range::join( boost::adaptors::slice( a, 0, 1 ), boost::adaptors::slice( a, 2, countof(a) ) ); modifies_range(rng); } Any thoughts? Should adaptors receiving lvalues offer an operator adaptor&() &&; // overload on rvalue-ness so they are passing through the lvalue or their argument? A suitable baseclass a la boost::additive could do that. Regards, Arno -- Dr. Arno Schödl | aschoedl(a)think-cell.com Technical Director think-cell Software GmbH | Chausseestr. 8/E | 10115 Berlin | Germany http://www.think-cell.com | phone +49 30 666473-10 | US phone +1 800 891 8091 Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 85229 | European Union VAT Id DE813474306 Directors: Dr. Markus Hannebauer, Dr. Arno Schoedl

8 21

[function] why do I function1 for type-of emulation?
by lcaminiti 10 Apr '12

10 Apr '12

Hello all, I was trying to use Boost.Function together with Boost.Typeof. It seems that if I run in type-of emulation mode I have to register boost::functionN instead of boost::function even if I only use boost::function... do you know why? For example: #include <boost/function.hpp> #include <boost/typeof/typeof.hpp> #include BOOST_TYPEOF_INCREMENT_REGISTRATION_GROUP() //BOOST_TYPEOF_REGISTER_TEMPLATE(boost::function, 1) // (1) BOOST_TYPEOF_REGISTER_TEMPLATE(boost::function1, 2) // (2) int main() { typedef BOOST_TYPEOF(&boost::function<int (int)>::operator()) f; return 0; } In order to compile this (on MSVC 8.0 and GCC 4.5.3) with BOOST_TYPEOF_EMULATION #defined, I have to register boost::function1 as in line (2) but I'd expect it to work with the registration of boost::function of line (1) instead. Why do I have to register boost::function1 (2) instead of boost::function (1) for type-of emulation? Thanks a lot. --Lorenzo -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/boost-function-why-do-I-function1-for-ty… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2 2