On 10/09/2012 12:31 AM, Peter wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2012 11:59 AM, _ wrote:
>>> Not that I think that STL/Boost are not great solutions for many
>>> problems out there.
>>> But the fact is that there is and always will be c/c++ code that can't
>
Ahh ... sorry for that incomplete mail. I lost my right hand in
paragliding accident 2 months ago. And writing mail with one hand on
tablet is kinda weird. Again sorry .;(
Here is the complete version.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/06/2012 11:59 AM, _ wrote:
>> Not t
On Oct 8, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/06/2012 11:59 AM, _ wrote:
>> Not that I think that STL/Boost are not great solutions for many
>> problems out there.
>> But the fact is that there is and always will be c/c++ code that can't
>> and will not use it.
>
> But surely the set
On 10/06/2012 11:59 AM, _ wrote:
> Not that I think that STL/Boost are not great solutions for many
> problems out there.
> But the fact is that there is and always will be c/c++ code that can't
> and will not use it.
But surely the set of people refusing to use C++ smart pointers is the
same set
On 10/05/2012 06:08 PM, _ wrote:
What you guys think about this?
I think we should wait if the Rust folks come up with a sound (in the
type-theoretic sense) and useful (in terms of programmer burden)
solution. After that, we can contemplate whether we can retrofit their
solution onto C/C++
On Oct 7, 2012 1:05 AM, "_" wrote:
>
> And as optional switch it's harmless to rest of gcc.
This is not true.
Every option adds a maintenance burden. It must be tested and its
interaction with other features must be considered, making it harder
to make future changes if they overlap or interfere
On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 02:47:59AM +0200, _ wrote:
> You will probably kill me for this. But no such patch yet exists.
> I am kinda trying findout wheter there is interest in such experiment
> and find some help since to me alone it would take ages.
I would suggest you to experiment your idea thru
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 7:47 PM, _ wrote:
> You will probably kill me for this. But no such patch yet exists.
> I am kinda trying findout wheter there is interest in such experiment
> and find some help since to me alone it would take ages.
> But I love to see that you are interested. It really is
You will probably kill me for this. But no such patch yet exists.
I am kinda trying findout wheter there is interest in such experiment
and find some help since to me alone it would take ages.
But I love to see that you are interested. It really is encouraging to me.
Thx. :)
Ladislav
On Sat, Oct 6
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-10-06 at 20:59 +0200, _ wrote:
>> Now obviously you can't put stl everywhere.
>> I don't see kernel and low level C or C++ libs using boost or stl. any
>> time soon.
>> Afterall. No reasonable library uses it either due to binary
>>
On Sat, 2012-10-06 at 20:59 +0200, _ wrote:
> Now obviously you can't put stl everywhere.
> I don't see kernel and low level C or C++ libs using boost or stl. any
> time soon.
> Afterall. No reasonable library uses it either due to binary
> incompatibilities.
It seems that your proposed fix to th
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 1:59 PM, _ wrote:
> Now obviously you can't put stl everywhere.
True. Did you send in a patch to review?
-- Gaby
There is a lot of places you can(and you probably will) make bugs.
A) less code less bugs. It's as simple as that.
B) people forget or make misteakes in cleanup order. Compiller doesn't
C) people put stuff to destructors. stuff that can (and will) blow and
no or wrong resources are released.
D) th
Now obviously you can't put stl everywhere.
I don't see kernel and low level C or C++ libs using boost or stl. any
time soon.
Afterall. No reasonable library uses it either due to binary incompatibilities.
But the idea behind smart-pointers is universal end equally relevant
in C and non stl world.
On Oct 5, 2012 5:09 PM, "_" wrote:
>
> Hi Guys
>
> By proposing switch I think no c++ standard is threatened. We allready
> have switch for unsigned char etc.
>
> Looking at most of effort being pushed to STL and all kinds of
> smart-pointer templates to produce more resilient code.
> I think C/ke
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:08 AM, _ wrote:
>
> I thing it would be best to implement it as compiller switch -fsmart-pointers
> not requiring scope object and derive statement for objects. ie we
> need equal flexibility and freedom like have today with static objects
Experience shows us that program
16 matches
Mail list logo
