Intentions of Boost.TR1

I just saw this post on comp.lang.c++.moderated.  I wonder if the
Boost.TR1 documentation shouldn't clarify its intended use or degree of
conformity.  I don't think TR1 conformity is something we have been
paying much attention to, is it?

From: Piotr Dobrogost <pd <at> 1.google.dobrogost.pl>
Subject: "DINKUMWARE LTD is the last remaining commercial supplier of Standard C++ libraries" - Dinkumware's website
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++.moderated
Date: 2009-04-23 07:39:28 GMT

Hi

I just read this

"DINKUMWARE LTD  is the last remaining commercial supplier of Standard
C++ libraries, (...)"

on http://www.dinkumware.com/competitors.aspx

{ mod note: the quoted paragraph continues "and has long been the only
commercial supplier of Standard C libraries." -mod }

If that was due to the fact there are free comparable implementations

Re: G++ hack/challenge?

David Abrahams wrote:
> I need a way to detect whether a type "has a move
> constructor" (without causing a compiler error, of course) in GCC 4.4.

What about creating a type U that inherits from T, does using T::T, and 
deletes U(const U&).

Now you just have to check whether U(make<U>()) is a valid expression 
using SFINAE for expressions.

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

Re: G++ hack/challenge?

on Thu Apr 30 2009, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard-AT-ens-lyon.org> wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> I need a way to detect whether a type "has a move
>> constructor" (without causing a compiler error, of course) in GCC 4.4.
>
> What about creating a type U that inherits from T, does using T::T, and deletes
> U(const U&).
> Now you just have to check whether U(make<U>()) is a valid expression
> using SFINAE for expressions.

Looks promising, but http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/cxx0x_status.html
indicates there's no constructor inheritance yet, which I believe is
required for that using declaration.  That's confirmed by my test with
g++-4.4 as available from macports.  Trying again with macports/gcc-4.5
prerelease, just for fun.

--

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

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

Re: Intentions of Boost.TR1

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:06 AM, David Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> wrote:
>
> I just saw this post on comp.lang.c++.moderated.  I wonder if the
> Boost.TR1 documentation shouldn't clarify its intended use or degree of
> conformity.  I don't think TR1 conformity is something we have been
> paying much attention to, is it?

It was clear to me that the conformance of Boost.TR1 depends on the
conformance of the respective Boost libraries.

There is a "TR1 By Subject" page that seems to address this:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_38_0/doc/html/boost_tr1/subject_list.html

Regards,
Eugene Wee
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[chrono] monotonic_clock ofr cygwin

Hi,

The Boost.Chrono do not compiles on cygwin. The MONOTONIC_CLOCK is not available.
I have just defined the monotonic_clock as system_clock and all works right.

Attached the patch. Do you agree to commit it?

Best,
Vicente 

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

[interprocess][circular_buffer] specialized containers should have container template argument

Hi Ion and Jan,

I often use these containers: flat_set, flat_map and circular_buffer. 
They are great.

However, we can make them faster if you allow a new template argument. 
For example

   template
   <
	class T,
         class Alloc,
         class Buffer = /* some default */
   >
   class circular_buffer;

   template
   <
	typename T,
	typename Pred,
	typename Alloc
         class PushBackContainer = /* some default */
   >
   class flat_set;

My motivation is that these can perform somewhat better e.g. with an 
array (for circular_buffer), or auto_buffer (for flat_set/flat_map).
I think even some very simply array wrapper would be useable with
flat_set.

Re: move library / trait needed

I've committed to sandbox/move changes to add has_nothrow_move and some 
tweaks to containers (revision 52699).

I haven't touched pair because I have no time to test anythying from now 
to the end of the next week, but I will try to keep an eye on this 
issue. I need time to see implications on allocators, which are copied 
(for non scoped allocators) on move construction and that would require 
no-throw guarantee to make the container nothrowmovable.

I hope you find changes useful for BoostCon. Best,

Ion

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

Re: Boostcon Boost++0x Session - Dave Abrahams

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Michael Caisse
<boost <at> objectmodelingdesigns.com> wrote:
> Michael Caisse wrote:
>>
>> Dave -
>>
>> I am sorting out which sessions to attend and
>> wish there was more of me. For the Boost++0x
>> sessions reading a tutorial is a prerequisite.
>> Is the tutorial on the boostcon site and I just
>> failed to find it?
>>
>> Thank you-
>> michael
>>
>>
>
> Ping?

We finally managed to get something on the wiki, here:

  http://www.boostcon.com/community/wiki/show/Start/
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Re: Intentions of Boost.TR1

David Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> writes:
> 
> I just saw this post on comp.lang.c++.moderated.  I wonder if the
> Boost.TR1 documentation shouldn't clarify its intended use or degree of
> conformity.  I don't think TR1 conformity is something we have been
> paying much attention to, is it?
>
> From: Piotr Dobrogost <pd <at> 1.google.dobrogost.pl>
[...]
> But taking TR1 as
> a test case Dinkumware estimates conformance of free implementations
> as 15% for Boost, and 12% for Gcc in a comparison to their 100%
> (http://www.dinkumware.com/tr1_compare.aspx).
[...] 

That "tr1_compare" page is an "interesting" marketing document.  It's quite out
of date as it used the Boost 1.33.1 release, thus giving total failures for some
tests such as unordered_set.  It also doesn't seem to mention the math functions
supported.  (12% was only for the non-math/c99 portion of TR1.)  A request to
update should probably be made to them.

I'm not sure what it takes to get a "source license" from them, but if anyone
has it I wonder if they could investigate this "Quick Proofer" tool they
developed.  It would seem more believable if they would make this an open source
tool for use as a true acid test.

-Ryan

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

[1.40.0] OK to build release?

There has been little feedback on the 1.40.0 beta release. I'm hoping
that is a good sign

Unless someone objects, I'll start building the actual release in an hour or so.

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