Hi Steve, The answer to most of your questions is 'no, no reason', 'no, I don't want ADL' or 'okay, I'll do that'. Apart from those below. On 20/12/2007, Steven Watanabe <steven@providere-consulting.com> wrote:
I don't think the test used is correct. The following program prints "0" under msvc 8.0:
#include <limits> #include <iostream>
int main() { std::cout << static_cast<std::size_t>( static_cast<float>(std::numeric_limits<std::size_t>::max())) << std::endl; }
I'll look into this soon (I don't have access to windows at home right now).
line 1282: return float_to_size_t(ceil( should qualify ceil with std::
line 1361: rehash_impl(static_cast<size_type>(floor(n / mlf_ * 1.25)) + 1); *std::*floor?
Both of these are preceded by 'use namespace std'. I was trying to support libraries that don't define the functions in the std namespace. ADL shouldn't be a problem here as the arguments are floats. But I could use the compatibility headers instead.
I'm getting a lot of warnings on the tests from msvc 8.0 with /W4 because minimal::ptr/const_ptr only defines operator+(int) and the internals call operator+ with a size_t. Is + required to work for the size_type or should it be cast to the difference_type explicitly?
I don't think the standard specifies exactly what the minimum requirements for 'Allocator::pointer' are. But I'd expect operator+ to use difference_type so I'll add casts. Maybe I should check for allocators which return a 'max_size' which doesn't fit into difference_type. Daniel