Re: [boost] [range][1.33.1] last few regressions.
I need to spend some more time on the range library before I feel>comfortable about releasing it together with boost.foreach.>I need to change the concept requirements and update the docs and won't have>time until the weekend.Understood, but please remember we're talking about patching the 1.33 release source here, *not* a new updated version: that's a different thing entirely.John.
boost.regex <at> virgin.net <boost.regex <at> virgin.net> writes:
I need to spend some more time on the range library before I
with boost.foreach.>I need to change the concept requirements and update the docs and won't have>time until the weekend.Understood, but please remember we're talking about
feel>comfortable about releasing it together patching the 1.33 release source
here, *not* a new updated version: that's a different thing entirely.John.
In that case we might as well just roll-back the changes from the RC branch to the main branch. Is that easy to do? -Thorsten
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
boost.regex <at> virgin.net <boost.regex <at> virgin.net> writes:
please remember we're talking about patching the 1.33 release source here, *not* a new updated version: that's a different thing entirely.John.
In that case we might as well just roll-back the changes from the RC branch to the main branch.
I hope you're not suggesting rolling back the changes you made to the documentation, where you clarified the Range concept and described the ways to extend it. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Eric Niebler <eric <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
boost.regex <at> virgin.net <boost.regex <at> virgin.net> writes:
please remember we're talking about patching the 1.33 release source here, *not* a new updated version: that's a different thing entirely.John.
In that case we might as well just roll-back the changes from the RC branch
to
the main branch.
I hope you're not suggesting rolling back the changes you made to the documentation, where you clarified the Range concept and described the ways to extend it.
well, if that way is going to change, wouldn't it be better not to say how to do it for now? I've settled for the names range_begin range_end range_size whereas the current docs uses boost_XXX. I'm working on it... -Thorsten
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Eric Niebler <eric <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
I hope you're not suggesting rolling back the changes you made to the documentation, where you clarified the Range concept and described the ways to extend it.
well, if that way is going to change, wouldn't it be better not to say how to do it for now?
No. The 1.33.1 docs should say how to extend the 1.33.1 Range library. If you know that it's going to change in 1.34 you could add a note to that effect. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Eric Niebler <eric <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
I hope you're not suggesting rolling back the changes you made to the documentation, where you clarified the Range concept and described the ways to extend it.
well, if that way is going to change, wouldn't it be better not to say how to do it for now?
No. The 1.33.1 docs should say how to extend the 1.33.1 Range library. If you know that it's going to change in 1.34 you could add a note to that effect. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Eric Niebler <eric <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
No. The 1.33.1 docs should say how to extend the 1.33.1 Range library. If you know that it's going to change in 1.34 you could add a note to that effect.
Right. I'll do that. -Thorsten
In that case we might as well just roll-back the changes from the RC branch to the main branch.
There haven't been any changes to the test itself, and the only changes in the headers appear to be: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/boost/boost/boost/range/end.hpp?r1=1.18&r2=1.18.2.1&only_with_tag=RC_1_33_0 and related changes. I'd still rather see this fixed than just rolled back (I presume these changes were in there for a reason?), or we could disable them for broken compilers if that works (but we need to know why they were in there in the first place, this could be a fix for VC6/7 for all I know). BTW I don't have a Boost source tree (or compiler) to work with at present to test this out, since I've just replaced my hard drive! Hopefully this narrows the problem down a bit? John.
participants (1)
-
boost.regex＠virgin.net -
Eric Niebler -
John Maddock -
Thorsten Ottosen