headers
Robert Ramey | 23 Sep 01:02

Re: [serialization docs] Ping?

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Robert Ramey" <ramey <at> rrsd.com> writes:
>
>> In order of frequence of usage, I see the documents as being used
>> to describe how to:
>>
>> a) make one's types serializable. ("Archive Concepts" and
>> "Serializable Concept")
>>
>> b) use archives which are included. ("Archive Models")
>>
>> c) make one's own archive implementation leveraging on the code
>> included. ("Archive Concept" and "Archive Implementation")
>>
>> d) make one's own archive implementation from scratch.  No one has
>> ever attempted this.  ("Archive Concept")
>
> That's exactly right.
>
>> I realize you don't buy this
>
> ???
>
>> and expect to see information which is
>> included in "Archive Implementation" moved to "Archive Concepts".
>
> Certainly not, unless "Archive Implementation" contains requirements
> for archives. You haven't been very clear about whether it does or
> not, but I think your last statement is that it doesn't.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joel de Guzman | 23 Sep 01:23
Picon
Favicon

Re: Documentation Wizard

Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews <at> kangaroologic.com>
> 
>>Simon Buchan wrote:
>>
>>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>>
>>>>Allow me to introduce Rob Stewart in his new role as Boost
>>>>Documentation Wizard.  For some time we've needed a person to
>>>>establish standards and policy, and to help ensure that Boost library
>>>>documentation is of the highest quality.  Rob has demonstrated both
>>>>the interest and the aptitude for this job, and the Boost moderators
>>>>are very pleased that he's accepted our invitation to take it on.  He
>>>>has lots of good ideas, so I'll leave the rest to him.  Rob?
> 
> 
> I'll be posting something about the position and the help I hope
> to get from the membership a little later.
> 
> In the meantime, thanks Dave, et al, for your confidence.
> 
> 
>>>Cool. No relation to Rod Stewart? :D
>>
>>Just a typographical relation ;-P
> 
> 
> He's my brother.  (Well, OK, not *that* Rod Stewart. ;-)

Well, either way, we'll definitely be "sailing" :-)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jonathan Turkanis | 23 Sep 03:06

Re: [Boost-bugs] [ boost-Support Requests-1299123 ]Boost.Iostreams and newline translation

Thanks for your interest in Boost.Iostreams.

SourceForge.net wrote:
> Submitted By: jpstanley (jpstanley)

> I maintain software that parses files out of disk
> images instead of the local file system.  I'd like to
> be able to wrap a C++ istream around my raw binary
> read/seek APIs to make it easier to parse data from
> disk images and interface with existing code.
> Boost.Iostreams makes this job a piece of cake--except
> that I haven't found a way to make the stream act like
> an ifstream opened in text mode (I'm on Win32, btw).
> In other words, I'd like to have CR, LF, and CRLF line
> endings translated into \n when I read the data.  There
> is a newline_filter class provided which does nearly
> exactly what I want--but it doesn't support seeking.  I
> still need seekg() and tellg() to work.
>
> I tried writing my own filter, but I ran into some
> problems.  It seems the Boost stream buffer class is
> built on the assumption that this will hold:
>
> std::streamsize P0 = str.tellg();
> str.read(buf, 100);
> std::streamsize P1 = str.tellg();
> assert(P1 - P0 == 100);

Note quite: you could reach EOF before reading 100 characters ;-) But I know
what you mean.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jonathan Turkanis | 23 Sep 03:35

Re: [Boost-bugs] [ boost-Support Requests-1299123]Boost.Iostreams and newline translation

Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Thanks for your interest in Boost.Iostreams.
>
> SourceForge.net wrote:
>> Submitted By: jpstanley (jpstanley)

For the record, I also replied at sourceforge.

--

-- 
Jonathan Turkanis
www.kangaroologic.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Hartmut Kaiser | 23 Sep 03:44
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Boost regression notification (2005-09-22 [RC_1_33_0])


Douglas Gregor wrote:

> > |wave|
> >   test_re2c_lexer:  intel-9.0-linux
> >   test_slex_lexer:  intel-9.0-linux
> >   testwave:  intel-9.0-linux
>
> We're hoping that the removal of <runtime-link>static fixes
> these issues...

Sorry, forgot to commit the changes to the RC_1_33_0 branch as well. But
should be fixed now.

Regards Hartmut

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kim Barrett | 23 Sep 04:52

[serialization docs] Ping?

This is in regard to the discussion of the "equivalence" of a
serialized object and the deserialized counterpart. It also touches on
the Serializable concept and some recent discussion of how classes
without default constructors can be handled, and a few other things
besides. (Sorry about the entanglement, but I'm not sure how to
separate some of these issues.) (Note that I also haven't read *all*
of the mail on this subject yet.)

The Common Lisp committee (X3J13) needed to deal with essentially the
same problem.

First, a bit of background. Because CL supports programmatic
construction of code which can then be passed to the compiler, and the
code "syntax" supports a quoting form for referring to a literal
constant, there was a need to address what it meant for various kinds
of objects to appear in such a context. And the resulting objects may
be referred to in code will be compiled to a file for later loading
into the same or some completely different runtime environment.
Earlier versions of the language simply listed all the cases for the
"built-in" types, and a simple mechanism for the simple record type
provided by the language (things defined with defstruct, if you care).
But with the addition of OO concepts in various implementations that
eventually led to CLOS (the CL Object System), it was realized that
this wasn't sufficient.

The term that was eventually adopted was "similar" or "similar as
constants" where further disambiguation was needed. I think that would
be a good term for the serialization library to adopt, as it avoids an
implications related to operator== and the ambiguity around the word
"equivalent".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Robert Ramey | 23 Sep 06:10

Re: [serialization docs] Ping?

Very interesting.

First I'm surprised that anyone else was even looking at that thread after 
all this time.

Its clear that there is a strong parallel here - maybe even a one-to-one 
correspondence.

I've concluded that the concept of Semantic really isn't formal. Its a 
narrative description of
what someone expects an expression to do.  This will often have some 
unavoidable
ambiguity. That doesn't make it useless its just that I don't think a 
semantic description
can every be definitive.  So I think I can just add a plausible narrative 
description that
I think will satisfy everyone.

In a year this has never come up.  I suspect that this is because people who 
read the
documentation already have an intuitive idea about what the expressions mean 
from
reading the tutorial.   Of course, there's no harm in trying to concisely 
explain them.
But I think its naive think that they are going to be definitiive or 
all-encompassing.

The C++ compiler can enforce correct usage of the concepts but it can't do 
the
same for the semantics unless they are written so narrowly so as to be of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Dan McLeran | 23 Sep 05:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: Bounded types

> let's finally do it - C++ lacks bounded types and it's high time to fix
> that! ;-)

I agree. I had been programming in C++ for a number of years before I was 
introduced to Ada. I loved the strict typing one can do in Ada and I would 
like to have at least some of these facilities in C++ as well (since that is 
what I use every day). I will certainly check out what you've posted 
(bounded types). One thing to keep in mind as we move forward with this is 
that, IMO, we need to support as much compile-time computation as much as 
possible. One thing I am struggling with is how to support both bounded 
floating-point types, but as the same time, have a bounded types template be 
able to be used from boost::mpl for compile-time computation.

Regards,

Dan McLeran

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Jonathan Turkanis | 23 Sep 06:34

Re: [serialization docs] Ping?

Robert Ramey wrote:
> Very interesting.
>
> First I'm surprised that anyone else was even looking at that thread
> after all this time.
>
> Its clear that there is a strong parallel here - maybe even a
> one-to-one correspondence.
>
> I've concluded that the concept of Semantic really isn't formal. Its a
> narrative description of
> what someone expects an expression to do.

Right. Coming from mathematical logic it's clear to me that usual concept
definitions aren't really formal. I'd call them 'semi-formal'. If you wanted to
write a truly formal specification, you'd first have to describe an abstract
machine to represent C++ programs and their execution environments, because the
C++ standard isn't really formal, either.

--
Jonathan Turkanis
www.kangaroologic.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Simon Buchan | 23 Sep 07:46
Picon

Re: [serialization docs] Ping?

Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
> 
>>Very interesting.
>>
>>First I'm surprised that anyone else was even looking at that thread
>>after all this time.
>>
>>Its clear that there is a strong parallel here - maybe even a
>>one-to-one correspondence.
>>
>>I've concluded that the concept of Semantic really isn't formal. Its a
>>narrative description of
>>what someone expects an expression to do.
> 
> 
> Right. Coming from mathematical logic it's clear to me that usual concept
> definitions aren't really formal. I'd call them 'semi-formal'. If you wanted to
> write a truly formal specification, you'd first have to describe an abstract
> machine to represent C++ programs and their execution environments, because the
> C++ standard isn't really formal, either.
> 
> --
> Jonathan Turkanis
> www.kangaroologic.com
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
Interesting: an 'abstract machine' representing the compiler is almost 
exactly the informal description used by version of the standard I saw
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |

Gmane