Hi all, I can't see a column for one of these compilers even in the full regression view... Does anyone still care to support them? Does anyone care if typeof supports these compilers? Regards, Arkadiy
In Feb 2005 there was a discussion of boost::tuple lib being replaced with a different more std::tr1 conforming version from boost::fusion. What is the status of this change? Thanks, KevinH -- Kevin Heifner heifner @ ociweb.com http://heifner.blogspot.com Object Computing, Inc. (OCI) www.ociweb.com
In Feb 2005 there was a discussion of boost::tuple lib being replaced with a different more std::tr1 conforming version from boost::fusion. What is the status of this change?
No progress as such, as far as I know (at least as far as Boost.Tuple goes), however the TR1 lib is using the new tuple code behind the scenes. John.
John Maddock wrote:
In Feb 2005 there was a discussion of boost::tuple lib being replaced with a different more std::tr1 conforming version from boost::fusion. What is the status of this change?
No progress as such, as far as I know (at least as far as Boost.Tuple goes), however the TR1 lib is using the new tuple code behind the scenes.
That's not exactly true. There's progress! :) Fusion is in the review queue. Some people say that we should just go ahead and change the old with the new. However, fusion is too big a departure from the original tuple library. There are lots more sequences (e.g. vector/list/set/map), an extensive set of views), there are algorithms and iterators, etc. I'd rather regard Fusion as an entire new library of its own. The TR1 compatibility layer is a mere fraction of its capabilities. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
Hi all,
I can't see a column for one of these compilers even in the full regression view... Does anyone still care to support them?
Yes.
Does anyone care if typeof supports these compilers?
And yes. IIUC typeof uses a bug-feature on those compilers that makes the implementation trivial, is that correct? In that case, IMO, there's little reason not to support them. -- Daniel Wallin
"Daniel Wallin" <dalwan01@student.umu.se> wrote
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
I can't see a column for one of these compilers even in the full
regression
view... Does anyone still care to support them?
Yes.
Does anyone care if typeof supports these compilers?
And yes. IIUC typeof uses a bug-feature on those compilers that makes the implementation trivial, is that correct? In that case, IMO, there's little reason not to support them.
I didn't mean to drop this. The bugfeature is also applied to vc-7_1, which makes it relevant even without tools mentioned. My question was actually caused by some code in LVALUE_TYPEOF that needs to use ifdefs based on whether or not partial template specialization is supported, and whether or not a function can return a reference to array. I lately run into a problem with gcc 4.0.2, that doesn't seem to like the workaround we used (returning pointer to array), so I was looking to somehow reduce the number of ifdefs to a manageble amount. Also, if the regression tests no longer run for these tools, how can one guarantee the support? Or is this temporary, and these tools are going to re-appear in the regression tables? Regards, Arkadiy
Arkadiy Vertleyb writes:
Also, if the regression tests no longer run for these tools, how can one guarantee the support? Or is this temporary, and these tools are going to re-appear in the regression tables?
The latter. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
participants (6)
-
Aleksey Gurtovoy -
Arkadiy Vertleyb -
Daniel Wallin -
Joel de Guzman -
John Maddock -
Kevin Heifner