ef74527f6b
DOC: eliminate spurious mentions of tr1::
2018-01-12 03:03:25 +01:00
afe07bdb16
decommission the safe-bool-idiom ( closes #477 )
...
obsoleted by C++11
* in most cases, it can be replaced by an explicit conversion operator
* especially for the Lumiera Forward Iterators, we need an implicit conversion
2017-04-02 06:42:23 +02:00
1a4b6545a0
maximum munch
...
...feels like X-mas
2016-12-23 04:23:03 +01:00
08e7e3df15
prefer more readable bool operator spelling
...
especially the '!' for negation is sometimes too terse
and easily overlooked.
2015-09-25 03:12:04 +02:00
a205653cad
C++ uses a more precise meaning of 'convertiblity' now
...
Conversion means automatic conversion. In our case,
what we need ist the ability to *construct* a bool from
our (function) object -- while functors aren't automatically
convertible to bool. Thus we use one of the new predicates
from <type_traits>
2014-05-09 00:56:31 +02:00
7be1b7d35d
Switch from TR1 preveiw to the new standard headers
...
- functional
- memory
- unordered collections
2014-04-03 22:42:48 +02:00
974c670d41
fix **** in doxygen comments
...
to make them stand out more prominently, some entity comments
where started with a line of starts. Unfortunately, doxygen
(and javadoc) only recogise comments which are started exactly
with /**
This caused quite some comments to be ignored by doxygen.
Credits to Hendrik Boom for spotting this problem!
A workaround is to end the line of stars with *//**
2013-10-24 23:06:36 +02:00
d9f84a9bfd
clean up lib/meta namespaces
2011-12-03 03:15:59 +01:00
c96cd66688
draft implementation for time change and propagation
2011-09-25 19:25:52 +02:00
3f1b7651e9
GPL header whitespace
2010-12-17 23:28:49 +01:00
9473fd3d67
OutputDesignation implementation draft
2010-11-19 05:01:43 +01:00
fea85acd0e
equality comparisons on function erasure objects covered
...
...well, as good as possible, as boost refuses to implement this feature
2009-10-11 05:57:43 +02:00
231278bafe
implemented comparison on function erasure, pending test
2009-10-11 05:57:43 +02:00
5068016805
WIP draft how the equality comparison on a function erasure could work
2009-10-11 05:57:43 +02:00
c85d1d3cd8
ArgumentHolder finished, low-level integration test pass
2009-07-20 07:03:18 +02:00
2462dee5ca
issue resolved, tests pass, finally (whew)
2009-07-06 02:25:19 +02:00
c3b8d39507
refactoring into two distinct concepts. maybe solution?
2009-07-05 22:05:11 +02:00
e2bb2c440c
use OpaqueHolder to solve the problem with the function type erasure...
...
...tried to use 2 policies, but doesn't work correct (and is uggly)
2009-07-05 03:38:33 +02:00
b65658c10d
try to fix a failing test (not really fixed yet)
2009-07-04 00:22:16 +02:00
8ea07bda7a
use the new bool conversion mixin to implement check for valid functor
2009-06-26 19:04:22 +02:00
5291f6e41a
move the member pointer to the current stack frame...
...
hopefully the optimiser will remove it completely ;-)
2009-06-26 17:13:36 +02:00
a30461780b
this way it works, but would cost additional storage....
2009-06-26 16:38:37 +02:00
daeff6f5fd
WIP: how to define the bool conversion / validity check for the function holders?
2009-06-26 05:27:54 +02:00
a28c05877f
test pass (resolves Ticket #174 )
2009-06-20 06:11:09 +02:00
079030818d
draft a test to sharpen the idea of the function holder (erasure)
2009-06-20 04:43:52 +02:00
a565bfef73
some header-renaming
2009-06-20 01:28:47 +02:00
