Jens Seidel wrote:
OK, it is now fixed. But I did not get any mail about it (at least for this bug report). I miss also your last comment ("Previous fix was incomplete") and why didn't you get a mail about my initial bug report (or did you recieve it?).
Is there a problem with trac and mails?
I'm not sure: I had to add my email address under the "settings" section in order to see email notifications. I had previously assumed that it was set up automatically given that you have to supply an email address when you sign up, but apparently not.
PS: John, to avoid to miss other posts of you I just use this mail to send you a further trivial patch which corrects mostly wrong comments in your header inclusion file tests (did you not use libs/math/test/compile_test/generate.sh to generate these?).
I did auto-generate them originally, but the tests weren't as effective as I'd hoped so they got changed :-( I should remove the shell script really. I'll look into the buggy comments.
PS2: I still miss an explanation from you why you use both internal and external inclusion guards: boost/math/complex/asinh.hpp contains:
#ifndef BOOST_MATH_COMPLEX_DETAILS_INCLUDED # include <boost/math/complex/details.hpp> #endif
and boost/math/complex/details.hpp:
#ifndef BOOST_MATH_COMPLEX_DETAILS_INCLUDED #define BOOST_MATH_COMPLEX_DETAILS_INCLUDED
Is this just old code or was it necessary because of the asinh/asin typo and you did so for other files as well?
I suggest to remove all outer include guards (also in other files).
Why? It makes no difference, except to improve performance for compilers that don't implement the include-guard detection trick that gcc uses. Regards, John