--- John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
There are still lots of issue with the comparison operators:
The first error occurs in the < comparison, which ends up calling operator > in sequence_less.hpp:
namespace sequence_less_detail { template <typename T,typename I1, typename I2> bool call(T const& self,I1 const& a, I2 const& b) { return *a < *b || !(*b > *a) && T::call(fusion::next(a), fusion::next(b)); } }
The thing is that's not a "less than" relation to begin with!
Yes, embarrasing typo, now corrected. It passed the previous comparison tests. I extended the tests quite a bit, defect failed tests before being fixed, passes after fix.
It's called from sequence_less::call which constructs a comparison object of type equal_to, which looks rather suspicious to me!
No problem here. The equal_to usage is to compare iterators over the sequences being compared, to established the loop termination point.
I'm attaching the error messages below, but I think you're going to have to work with the test cases I sent you, *and* devise some runtime tests to ensure that these operators actually do what they're supposed to.
As mentioned above, I've extended the runtime tests to avoid this sort of typo creeping through again. I also copied the files that you sent to Joel into boost/tr1 and libs/tr1/test. I then ran all the tests with bjam -sTOOLS=gcc. Amongst the mass of messages, it seemed that tuple_test compiled, with some warnings about unused variables. I believe this is a compile time test, so this constitutes success? I hope this is how the tests were supposed to be run, if not just give me some pointers.
Thanks for persuing this,
John.
No problem, sorry about the dodgy first attempt. Cheers Dan ___________________________________________________________ WIN ONE OF THREE YAHOO! VESPAS - Enter now! - http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/features/competitions/vespa.html