[range] Request to merge minor small defect fixes
Please may I merge some very small defect fixes for Boost.Range, and an additional test? The defect fixes are to improve return types consistency. I would like to get the interface correct for the first release of the merged RangeEx code. I have also added a test case that checks the use of non-member functions as functors and explicitly tests chaining of Range Adaptors. I believe this provides appreciably better visibility of the state of the library on the various compilers. These changes have been passing tests on the trunk for several days. The changes are also extremely low impact as they are in the new Range code that is not yet used within the rest of the Boost libraries. Thanks, Neil Groves
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Neil Groves <neil@grovescomputing.com>wrote:
Please may I merge some very small defect fixes for Boost.Range, and an additional test?
Please hold off until the beta release candidate becomes available, hopefully in a few hours. In the meantime, please take a look at the failures below. These seem to be Boost.Range related problems. Thanks, --Beman http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/output/BGD-Ubuntu-... http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/output/BGD-Ubuntu-...
In the meantime, please take a look at the failures below. These seem to be Boost.Range related problems.
Thanks,
--Beman
http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/output/BGD-Ubuntu-...
I can look into this one tonight. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had failed to spot that this was Boost.Range related. I've taken a quick glimpse and didn't quite understand why it doesn't work. I'll need to spend sometime tonight after work to determine if I can fix this quickly.
http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/output/BGD-Ubuntu-...
I was aware of this one. I know exactly how to fix this. There are two obvious very simple fixes. Would it be ok to fix this and check in the change since it has been failing for a while? Thanks, Neil Groves
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Neil Groves <neil@grovescomputing.com>wrote:
In the meantime, please take a look at the failures below. These seem to
be
Boost.Range related problems.
Thanks,
--Beman
http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/output/BGD-Ubuntu-...
I can look into this one tonight. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had failed to spot that this was Boost.Range related. I've taken a quick glimpse and didn't quite understand why it doesn't work. I'll need to spend sometime tonight after work to determine if I can fix this quickly.
http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/output/BGD-Ubuntu-...
I was aware of this one. I know exactly how to fix this. There are two obvious very simple fixes. Would it be ok to fix this and check in the change since it has been failing for a while?
OK. The beta release candidate build just completed. Please follow the usual procedure: commit changes to trunk first, and only merge to release after trunk tests have cycled. Thanks, --Beman
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Neil Groves <neil@grovescomputing.com
wrote:
In the meantime, please take a look at the failures below. These seem
to be
Boost.Range related problems.
Thanks,
--Beman
http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/output/BGD-Ubuntu-...
I can look into this one tonight. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had failed to spot that this was Boost.Range related. I've taken a quick glimpse and didn't quite understand why it doesn't work. I'll need to spend sometime tonight after work to determine if I can fix this quickly.
Eric Niebler has fixed this on the trunk. The issue was that the Boost.ForEach test was not implementing the documented Boost.Range extension interface and ADL failed to find the extension functions. Eric fixed this in revision 61264 on the trunk but it has not been merged into the release.
http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/output/BGD-Ubuntu-...
I was aware of this one. I know exactly how to fix this. There are two obvious very simple fixes. Would it be ok to fix this and check in the change since it has been failing for a while?
This was an ambiguous function call look up in the Boost.MultiArray tests. The tests used a global equal function which was working ok, until I altered the header file dependencies. Boost.Range now uses the equal algorithm to implement operator== and for iterator_range. I have altered the Boost.MultiArray tests to disambiguate the calls to the equal function.
OK. The beta release candidate build just completed.
Please follow the usual procedure: commit changes to trunk first, and only merge to release after trunk tests have cycled.
I shall watch the trunk tests for the next couple of days. If everything looks good I shall merge the MultiArray unit test changes in. If you would like I could also merge Eric's changes to the foreach tests at the same time.
Thanks, --Beman
I hope this helps, Neil Groves
On 4/20/2010 3:24 PM, Neil Groves wrote:
Eric Niebler has fixed this on the trunk. The issue was that the Boost.ForEach test was not implementing the documented Boost.Range extension interface and ADL failed to find the extension functions. Eric fixed this in revision 61264 on the trunk but it has not been merged into the release.
Yes, the test is invalid. I can merge the fixed test to release, but it doesn't seem necessary for 1.43. I can confirm that the fixed test makes the problem go away on the release branch. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
participants (3)
-
Beman Dawes -
Eric Niebler -
Neil Groves