Comments on: This Week in Boost http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/10/this-week-in-boost/ The next generation of C++ Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:36:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Steven Watanabe http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/10/this-week-in-boost/comment-page-1/#comment-340 Steven Watanabe Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:57:12 +0000 http://cpp-next.com/?p=746#comment-340 <p>If you don't mind reading quickbook source, you can check http://beta.boost.org/feed/history/boost_1_41_0.qbk</p> If you don’t mind reading quickbook source, you can check http://beta.boost.org/feed/history/boost_1_41_0.qbk

]]> By: Kaz Dragon http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/10/this-week-in-boost/comment-page-1/#comment-339 Kaz Dragon Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:22:58 +0000 http://cpp-next.com/?p=746#comment-339 <p>With the 1.41.0 beta just around the corner (Thursday, IIRC), would it be possibe to give a quick overview as to what's expected to be added to this great library collection?</p> With the 1.41.0 beta just around the corner (Thursday, IIRC), would it be possibe to give a quick overview as to what’s expected to be added to this great library collection?

]]> By: Tony http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/10/this-week-in-boost/comment-page-1/#comment-338 Tony Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:52:52 +0000 http://cpp-next.com/?p=746#comment-338 <p>OK now I see how bad this is. ADL is even worse than I thought... Tony</p> OK now I see how bad this is. ADL is even worse than I thought… Tony

]]> By: Tony http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/10/this-week-in-boost/comment-page-1/#comment-337 Tony Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:38:48 +0000 http://cpp-next.com/?p=746#comment-337 <p>It would all be much easier if the language considered this to be valid:</p> <p>int f() { return 1; } void f(int) { return 2; }</p> <p>int main() { return f(f(4)); }</p> <p>Tony</p> It would all be much easier if the language considered this to be valid:

int f() { return 1; } void f(int) { return 2; }

int main() { return f(f(4)); }

Tony

]]> By: Tony http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/10/this-week-in-boost/comment-page-1/#comment-336 Tony Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:09:35 +0000 http://cpp-next.com/?p=746#comment-336 <p>Could you redefine a 'standard' operator,() inside of namespace detail/is_incr that hides the 'bad' user-defined one? ie then the one inside the namespace of is_incr be chosen first? Or is that too simple?</p> <p>Tony</p> Could you redefine a ‘standard’ operator,() inside of namespace detail/is_incr that hides the ‘bad’ user-defined one? ie then the one inside the namespace of is_incr be chosen first? Or is that too simple?

Tony

]]> By: Steven Watanabe http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/10/this-week-in-boost/comment-page-1/#comment-335 Steven Watanabe Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:43:55 +0000 http://cpp-next.com/?p=746#comment-335 <p>Yeah, that seems a little better. I'm not sure that it makes much difference in practice, since I've only seen an overloaded <code>operator,</code> in contrived examples anyway.</p> Yeah, that seems a little better. I’m not sure that it makes much difference in practice, since I’ve only seen an overloaded operator, in contrived examples anyway.

]]> By: litb http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/10/this-week-in-boost/comment-page-1/#comment-334 litb Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:16:35 +0000 http://cpp-next.com/?p=746#comment-334 <p>I had the same problem and did two rounds of "operator," like in this one: http://codepad.org/59U28jCs . It still fails for "op,(T const&, test)" but i thought it's less likely such a op, exists.</p> I had the same problem and did two rounds of “operator,” like in this one: http://codepad.org/59U28jCs . It still fails for “op,(T const&, test)” but i thought it’s less likely such a op, exists.

]]> By: Michael Caisse http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/10/this-week-in-boost/comment-page-1/#comment-333 Michael Caisse Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:28:12 +0000 http://cpp-next.com/?p=746#comment-333 <p>Great idea for a series Steven. I'm looking forward to reading your weekly updates.</p> Great idea for a series Steven. I’m looking forward to reading your weekly updates.

]]> By: Steven Watanabe http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/10/this-week-in-boost/comment-page-1/#comment-332 Steven Watanabe Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:26:49 +0000 http://cpp-next.com/?p=746#comment-332 <p>There might be a way out, but if there is, I couldn't find it. I've tried using (non-portable) ADL hacks to generate an overload of <code>operator,</code> that is always more specialized than any user defined overload. It sort of worked on gcc and msvc. Unfortunately, there were still some ICEs that I couldn't get rid of. I don't remember the details exactly.</p> There might be a way out, but if there is, I couldn’t find it. I’ve tried using (non-portable) ADL hacks to generate an overload of operator, that is always more specialized than any user defined overload. It sort of worked on gcc and msvc. Unfortunately, there were still some ICEs that I couldn’t get rid of. I don’t remember the details exactly.

]]> By: Dave Abrahams http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/10/this-week-in-boost/comment-page-1/#comment-331 Dave Abrahams Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:02:39 +0000 http://cpp-next.com/?p=746#comment-331 <p>:( So did I implement that trick incorrectly, or is there really no way out of that problem?</p> :( So did I implement that trick incorrectly, or is there really no way out of that problem?

]]>