incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anton Pevtsov" <Ant...@moscow.vdiweb.com>
Subject RE: test for lib.string.access
Date Wed, 10 May 2006 14:48:27 GMT
Martin, this is the signature for 
at (size_type) const and 
operator [] (size_type) const.

Ther is small problem with brackets: our engine set it automatically
before and after the signature description.
But this signature is an exception: it should contain "const" after the
brackets.

I see possible variants "at (size_type const)" or "at ((size_type)
const)" without interference into the code.
I think there is no need to provide special processing for this
signature in the code. 
What do you think about it?


Thanks,
Anton Pevtsov.


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 01:09
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: test for lib.string.access


Anton Pevtsov wrote:
> The ported test is here: 
> http://people.apache.org/~antonp/stdcxx05062006/

Index: 21.strings.cpp
===================================================================
--- 21.strings.cpp	(revision 400251)
+++ 21.strings.cpp	(working copy)
@@ -204,6 +204,7 @@
              "const value_type*",
              "const basic_string&",
              "size_type",
+            "size_type const",
                        ^^^^^^
Did you really mean to make the function argument const? Won't it
generate things like std;:string::at (size_type const) const?

Otherwise okay to commit.

Martin

Mime
View raw message