incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: svn commit: r678913 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x: ./ etc/config/src/ examples/include/ include/ include/loc/ include/rw/ src/ tests/containers/ tests/localization/ tests/strings/ tests/utilities/
Date Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:01:07 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:31 PM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r678913 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x: 
> ./ etc/config/src/ examples/include/ include/ include/loc/ 
> include/rw/ src/ tests/containers/ tests/localization/ 
> tests/strings/ tests/utilities/
> 
...
> ==============================================================
> ================
> > --- stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include/deque.cc (original)
> > +++ stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include/deque.cc Tue Jul 22 14:24:01 2008
> > @@ -518,8 +518,6 @@
> >  }
> >  
> >  
> > -#ifndef _RWSTD_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATES
> > -
> >  template <class _TypeT, class _Allocator>
> >  template <class _InputIter>
> >  void deque<_TypeT, _Allocator>::
> > @@ -529,18 +527,6 @@
> >  
> >      deque* const __self = this;
> 
> And here we should be able to do away with the __self hack. This
> hack, btw., is probably used in other containers (string comes
> to mind, although it doesn't look to me like your patch removes
> this cruft from string), so we should review and clean those up
> as well. Otherwise these strange looking vestiges will leave
> people wondering what the heck we're doing.

Since this change is not related to STDCXX-978 and involves other
containers not affected by this issue, we should create a new
issue and do this cleanup as part of that issue, yes?

> 
...
> > +
> >      static void swap(reference __x, reference __y);
> > +
> >      void flip ();
> > +
> >      void clear()
> 
> These are good changes but in the future please resist the urge
> to improve formatting in the same patch as where you're making
> substantive changes.

I agree in principle but for very small changes like this I probably
wouldn't bother going to the trouble of doing this separately.  :)

I'm incorporating all other recommendations.

Thanks,
Brad.

Mime
View raw message