--- Comment #18 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-02-04 20:53 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Out of curiosity, I was checking the LWG website; I couldn't find these issues
> (but then, I don't have inside access). I'm more than willing write a DR for
> both points mentioned, but I'd hat
--- Comment #17 from squell at alumina dot nl 2006-02-04 12:45 ---
Out of curiosity, I was checking the LWG website; I couldn't find these issues
(but then, I don't have inside access). I'm more than willing write a DR for
both points mentioned, but I'd hate to duplicate any effort. Comm
--- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-25 14:04
---
Mentally fix the typographical errors in that last post. :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22634
--- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-25 14:01
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> I've attached the work-around I personally use to this kind of problem, which
> is
> wrapping the iterator in another iterator which changes the value_type.
I tried this approach as
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-25 09:51 ---
Subject: Re: partial_sum is too constrained
"chris at bubblescope dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I'm not personally 100% sure that this should be "fixed", I've used
| partial_sum where I've a
--- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-07-25 09:03
---
I'm not personally 100% sure that this should be "fixed", I've used partial_sum
where I've assumed this
behaviour, and adding the things in the "output type" would have broken...
I've attached the work-arou
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-24 17:18 ---
Subject: Re: partial_sum is too constrained
"squell at alumina dot nl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-24 16:42
---
| (In reply t
--- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-24 16:42
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Yes, the standard requirements for iterators exhibit inconsistencies
> at many places; for example an InputIterator is not required (by the
> Standard) to be copy-constructible; consequ
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-24 11:35 ---
Subject: Re: partial_sum is too constrained
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gaby, maybe adjacent_difference should also be in the DR?
yes, you're right.
-- Gaby
--
http
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-24 09:06
---
Ok, let's suspend it for now: in the meanwhile I checked that at least another
implementation behaves exactly like GCC, another good reason to wait for
feedback
from the committee before taking any action.
Gaby,
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-24 03:27 ---
Subject: Re: partial_sum is too constrained
"squell at alumina dot nl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #2)
| > ((...(*first + *(first + 1)) + ...) + *(first + (i - result)))
|
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-07-24 03:21 ---
Subject: Re: partial_sum is too constrained
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| No, the standard says that the result for an iterator 'i' in the output
| range is
| ((...
--- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-24 02:31
---
To clarify a bit; the comments dealing with the lines that read;
ValueType value ( *first ); // copy construct!
Should be ignored. I wrote them out of fear for situations where
"T obj(initializer);" works b
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-24 00:14
---
Well, let's have the libstdc++ people comment then :-)
W.
--
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-23 23:20
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> ((...(*first + *(first + 1)) + ...) + *(first + (i - result)))
> So arithmetic is done with the data type of the input range. That may be
> undesirable on occasion, but that's what
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-23 21:15
---
No, the standard says that the result for an iterator 'i' in the output
range is
((...(*first + *(first + 1)) + ...) + *(first + (i - result)))
So arithmetic is done with the data type of the input range
--- Additional Comments From squell at alumina dot nl 2005-07-23 20:08
---
Created an attachment (id=9338)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9338&action=view)
See the original post
There is an issue here that this routine assumes that the result of the
operation is Cop
17 matches
Mail list logo
