[boost-users] [parameter] test\preprocessor.cpp
With the latest CVS, test\preprocessor.cpp no longer compiles. The first two errors are: macro BOOST_PARAMETER_FOR_EACH_pred_aux3 requires 3 arguments, but only 2 given macro BOOST_PP_SPLIT_0 requires 2 arguments, but only 1 given All of my programs that use BOOST_PARAMETER_FUNCTION et al. are failing due to these errors. Cromwell D. Enage __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Cromwell Enage wrote:
With the latest CVS, test\preprocessor.cpp no longer compiles. The first two errors are:
macro BOOST_PARAMETER_FOR_EACH_pred_aux3 requires 3 arguments, but only 2 given macro BOOST_PP_SPLIT_0 requires 2 arguments, but only 1 given
All of my programs that use BOOST_PARAMETER_FUNCTION et al. are failing due to these errors.
Are you sure you have your working copy up to date? The tests all pass on my machine. -- Daniel Wallin
--- Daniel Wallin wrote:
Are you sure you have your working copy up to date? The tests all pass on my machine.
Okay, somehow I didn't update preprocessor.cpp along with the rest of the tree. I got that fixed and now the test program works. My own code is using outdated syntax. Looks like I have to add those default values into my BOOST_PARAMETER_FUNCTION calls. Cromwell D. Enage __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Cromwell Enage wrote:
--- Daniel Wallin wrote:
Are you sure you have your working copy up to date? The tests all pass on my machine.
Okay, somehow I didn't update preprocessor.cpp along with the rest of the tree. I got that fixed and now the test program works.
My own code is using outdated syntax. Looks like I have to add those default values into my BOOST_PARAMETER_FUNCTION calls.
Right. The older syntax is still supported, but with new names: BOOST_PARAMETER_BASIC_* -- Daniel Wallin
--- Daniel Wallin wrote:
Cromwell Enage wrote:
My own code is using outdated syntax. Looks like I have to add those default values into my BOOST_PARAMETER_FUNCTION calls.
Right. The older syntax is still supported, but with new names:
BOOST_PARAMETER_BASIC_*
That's good to know, because I haven't figured out how to reimplement most of my graph algorithms using the new syntax, due to interdependencies between their default values. I suspect that the people who will retrofit the BGL algorithms to use Boost.Parameter will run into the same issues without this information to help them. I'll wait until the syntax is finalized, though, just to be sure. Cromwell D. Enage __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Cromwell Enage wrote:
--- Daniel Wallin wrote:
Cromwell Enage wrote:
My own code is using outdated syntax. Looks like I have to add those default values into my BOOST_PARAMETER_FUNCTION calls. Right. The older syntax is still supported, but with new names:
BOOST_PARAMETER_BASIC_*
That's good to know, because I haven't figured out how to reimplement most of my graph algorithms using the new syntax, due to interdependencies between their default values.
We are in the process of updating the documentation for the new syntax. The rule regarding interdependencies is that arguments may depend on previous arguments. So for instance: BOOST_PARAMETER_FUNCTION( (void), f, tag, (required (x, *) (y, *)) (optional (z, *, x + z) (u, *, z)) ) is OK. And: f(x = 1, y = 2) is equivalent to f(x = 1, y = 2, z = 1 + 2, u = 1 + 2) -- Daniel Wallin
participants (2)
-
Cromwell Enage -
Daniel Wallin