----- Mensaje original ----- De: Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> Fecha: Martes, Septiembre 21, 2004 9:03 pm Asunto: [boost] Re: [assign] fixes for msvc, msvc-stlport and vc7

Hi Joaquin,

[...]

| 2. list_insert::operator()(T t) has been changed to accept | a const reference instead.

I have made this change as

#if BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC, <= 1200)

template< class T > list_inserter& operator()( const T& t ) #else template< class T > list_inserter& operator()( T t ) #endif

As you wrote it, the workaround applies only to MSVC 6.0. Let's wait for the next test cycle to see if it has to be extended to MSVC 7.0 as well.

| With these changes, all tests build, though three of them | crash at run-time (list_inserter, list_of and multi_index_container)

ok, this is much better than before! some of the test a big and fat and do some tricky conversions...but just having the basic stuff working is great!

|I've got two questions: | |1. Could somebody (the author, I guess) validate these changes |for commit?

I have comitted them.

|2. list_inserter follows a strange convention (IMHO) of not |forcing template params to be const references in its various |copy ctors and assignment operators, for instance: | |list_inserter( Function fun ); |template< class T > |list_inserter& operator=( T r ); | |Any reason for this approach? I don't know if this can pose |problems, but to me having these qualified with const & seems |like the usual way.

yes, the bitches are char[N] and wchar_t[N] which does not convert to char* and wchar_t* otherwise. this comes up in simple stuff like

vector<string> = list_of( "foo" )( "goobar" );

Ummm, I see. The fact is that here lies, I think, the reason for the three remaining crashes, all on calls to multi-argument versions of list_inserter::operator(). Maybe I'll give this some thinking over if I have some spare time tomorrow.

of course, the Function arg could be const Function&, but is there any difference in inline code?

I think this can involve an extra copy under some circumstances, ans some compilers might not optimize this away. But in general I agree with you little is gained by having const Function &.

Muchos gracias for the patch!

Velbekomme :) Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo