headers
Dave Steffen | 1 Feb 2006 01:05
Picon
Favicon

Re: [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers - another view

Jody Hagins writes:
 > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:26:29 -0500
 > "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental <at> thomson.com> wrote:
 > 
 > > It's all good and interesting but would you prefer minimal
 > > testing component? You stuck with a single BOOST_CHECK tool and
 > > couldn't figure out why particular assertion fails. You could use
 > > debugger but using BOOST_CHEKK_EQUAL would give you much more
 > > change to figure it you quicker without one.
 > 
 > Without a doubt, Boost.Test singlehandedly eliminated one of my biggest
 > objections to test-first coding.  I still don't do it near as much as I
 > would like, but Boost.Test surely eliminated one of my biggest
 > obstacles.
 > 
 > I really like what it provide.

 FWIW, Boost Test is now _the_ framework for our unit tests.  It's
 far, far better than anything else we've tried.

 > However...  I still can't figure out how to use the macro that checks
 > equivalence between floating point numbers.  The interface is just too
 > strange, and the docs are not very clear.

 It's not perfect, and yes, the floating point stuff is a little odd.
 I ended up wrapping it into something that was a little easier for
 the other coders to deal with.  Out of curiosity, what sort of
 interface would you like? (I'm looking for ideas.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Kevin Heifner | 1 Feb 2006 01:16
Favicon

Re: [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers

Jeff Garland wrote:
> Anyway, here's how I'd categorize the current set of compilers on the
> regression page:
> 
> Supported;
> vc7.1 
> vc8.x 
> intel9_x 
> cw9_4 
> gcc3.x 
> gcc4.x 
> tru64cxx71-xx 
> 
> Deprecated:
> intel8_x
> tru64cxx65-xx
> 
> Unsupported:
> borland 5_6_x
> cw8_x
> dmc 
> gcc2.95.x 
> sunpro 
> vc6 
> vc7 

Even ACE is dropping support for vc6 and vc7 in the upcoming 
version 5.5 along with KAI C++, Visual Age 5, CBuilderX.

>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gennadiy Rozental | 1 Feb 2006 01:21
Picon

Re: [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers - another view

> However...  I still can't figure out how to use the macro that checks
> equivalence between floating point numbers.  The interface is just too
> strange, and the docs are not very clear.
>
> I played around with it for a while, and then just stopped trying to use
> it.  That's really my biggest complaint with the test library (so, it
> can't be too bad for me at least ;-).

I am working on docs. Once it's done you could read it again and let me know 
how clear it is.

Gennadiy 

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gennadiy Rozental | 1 Feb 2006 01:28
Picon

Re: [test] Issues with cvs head revision


> What can I do to help?

The best help would be to create new page "Introduction for CppUnit Users". 
If you need information on Boost.Test I am always available. Or you could 
start new thread: My CppUnit practices and I could come up with 
corresponding Boost.Test alternatives. Then somebody will need to convert it 
into doc page. I have a lot on my plate at the moment, so any help 
appreciated.

Gennadiy 

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
MB | 1 Feb 2006 01:29
Picon
Favicon

Re: [Range] breaking update pending

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> 
>  > MB <mb2act <at> yahoo.co.jp> writes:
>  >
>  >
>  >> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> Dear All,
>  >>>
>  >>> I have been trimming boost.range to incorporate the changes we have 
> been
>  >>> discussing some time ago.
>  >>>
>  >>> These changes will break many uses of the library. Inside boost 
> this will affect
>  >>>
>  >>> Boost.foreach
>  >>> Boost.string algo
>  >>> Boost.iostreams (*)
>  >>>
>  >>> (*) I don't this will break
>  >>>
>  >>> The list of major changes is the follwing:
>  >>>
>  >>> 1. ADL hooks renamed boost_range_begin -> range_begin,
>  >>>                      boost_range_end -> range_end
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Why was such short name accepted??
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 18 comments |
headers
Loïc Joly | 1 Feb 2006 02:09
Picon

Re: [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers - another view

Jeff Flinn a écrit :
> Robert Ramey wrote:
> 
>>>Loïc Joly wrote:
>>>
>>>>My pet peeve with debugging my serialization code based on boost is
>>>>currently the slooowwness of the compiler in step by step walking
>>>>through the code, when the call stack gets huge (deep withing
>>>>serialization, for instance). 20s from one line the the next one...
>>>
>>>Hmm - I've never experienced that - but I'm using VC 7.1
> 
> 
> Time to exit Visual Studio and reboot. I've seen this not just with 
> serialization.

Did so, no noticeable changes...

--

-- 
Loïc

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Andrew Schweitzer | 1 Feb 2006 02:48
Picon

When will next asio release occur?

Sorry to ask the obvious questions again. I don't seem to see the answer 
from a search of the list.

Is there an expected date for acceptance decision? Or a "rough guess 
suject to change at any time"?

If it gets accepted, is there an expected date on when it will be part 
of boost?

Is there an expected date on next release at asio website? (Presumably 
before next boost release)?

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Andrew Schweitzer | 1 Feb 2006 02:54
Picon

Re: When will next asio release occur?

Andrew Schweitzer wrote:
> Sorry to ask the obvious questions again. I don't seem to see the answer 
> from a search of the list.
> 
> Is there an expected date for acceptance decision? Or a "rough guess 
> suject to change at any time"?

oops forgot to add, no rush, just curious and looking forward to it.

> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jody Hagins | 1 Feb 2006 03:48
Favicon

Re: [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers - another view

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:05:28 -0700
Dave Steffen <dgsteffen <at> numerica.us> wrote:

>  It's not perfect, and yes, the floating point stuff is a little odd.
>  I ended up wrapping it into something that was a little easier for
>  the other coders to deal with.  Out of curiosity, what sort of
>  interface would you like? (I'm looking for ideas.)

I'm not sure... I just know that the current interface is too unwieldly.
 A large number of my use cases can be done with a target value, and and
epsilon on either side (or a range).

I like the ideas of "closeness" as defined in the Boost.Test stuff, but
I just don't get the interface.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Victor A. Wagner Jr. | 1 Feb 2006 04:09

Re: 1.34 Release Plan - an alternative view

At 10:53 2006-01-31, David Abrahams wrote:
>"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr <at> rudbek.com> writes:
>
> > At 03:01 2006-01-30, David Abrahams wrote:
> >>"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr <at> rudbek.com> writes:
> >>
> >>I keep asking, if you only release what's on HEAD, how do you do
> >>point releases?
> >
> > what's the "meaning" of a "point" release anyhow?
>
>The "meaning" is a release that's exactly like some other release
>except for the addition of bug fixes.
>
> > release numbers (names) are a marketing concept (so the collateral
> > material can be produced).  They've _never_ had any relevance to
> > software (other than some loose conventions which caused more
> > problems than they were worth)
>
>Yes, numbering is irrelevant.  I didn't mention numbering.  Please
>address the question with that in mind.

and exactly what does "point" refer to if NOT the separator between 
numbers?  for example 1.33.1

> >>And anyway, why this obsession with HEAD?  In SVN, it's just another
> >>branch.
> >
> > In SVN, iirc, "numbers" are even further removed from any meaningful
> > relationship for a "release"... but as for the "obsession" it's
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |

Gmane