Re: [Boost-maint] [EXTERNAL] PING: Another patch request

Subject: Re: [Boost-maint] [EXTERNAL] PING: Another patch request
From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-05 22:14:25

On Feb 5, 2014, at 6:50 PM, Belcourt, Kenneth <kbelco_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 7:46 PM, Marshall Clow wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> P.S.	My next change to function will be as simple as the last one, but I’m going to make it a pull request to see how well it works.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I lied. This was short enough that I didn’t do that.
>>> Next one for sure! (says Bullwinkle).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This patch fixes two tests that were failing when built with libc++/c++11.
>>> The problem is in the tests - they were comparing two ostream & for equality.
>>> 
>>> Strictly speaking, that’s not allowed. 
>>> What was happening in C++03 was that they were being implicitly converted to void *, and the pointers compared. (this allowed the “if ( !stream)” idiom.
>>> In C++11, the conversion is to bool (not void *), and it is explicit - so this code no longer compiles:
>>> 	std::cout == std::cout.
>>> 
>>> I changed the tests to use a different structure there, one with an actual operator==.
>>> (and removed some tabs)
>>> 
>>> This should give Boost.Function an (almost) completely green test matrix.
>> 
>> What I’m looking for here is for someone to take a look at the patch and say “Yeah, that’s fine” or “no this needs work because of X, Y, and/or Z”
> 
> Yeah, this looks fine Marshall, sorry, I missed your previous post.

Thanks.

This is the workflow I’m trying to build here in the group.

Someone proposes a change, others review it.
But it won’t work if no one looks at other people’s changes.

— Marshall