-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Ported regex files for Windows Phone 8.1 #22
Open
mosherubin
wants to merge
4
commits into
boostorg:develop
Choose a base branch
from
mosherubin:develop
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e9cae88
Ported regex files for Windows Phone 8.1
mosherubin 29690c7
Changed all instances of BOOST_ASIO_WINDOWS_RUNTIME to BOOST_PLAT_WIN…
mosherubin 30302c4
Changed BOOST_ASIO_WINDOWS_RUNTIME to BOOST_PLAT_WINDOWS_RUNTIME
mosherubin dc9ec1c
As per MarcelRaad's comment, I have removed any WinRT-related preproc…
mosherubin File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given the assert earlier, these checks look redundant to me?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The three functions:
are not consistent in their manner of validity checking. If BOOST_ASSERT is like its C counterpart, then it will only catch a null 'f' value in debug, not release. For release mode, all validity checks must be in the form of C++ comparison statements. For that matter, the BOOST_ASSERT() macro should be used in all three functions.
In addition, the check of "if (file && node)" was being done in only function no. 1, not in 2 and 3. IMHO, the check should be done in all three functions (and not in 1 & 2 only as I submitted).
Both "file" and "node' should be checked for null values in all three functions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please see comment #19 for a similar discussion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On 03/11/2015 20:35, mosherubin wrote:
You need to realise that these are strictly internal implementation
details that are only constructed in certain ways (they're also
deprecated so we're arguing over angels on a pinhead, but never mind).
The following invariants hold:
if file is NULL then node is NULL.
If file is not NULL then node is not NULL.
When constructing from a mapfile then the argument is never NULL.
IMO using asserts to check these invariants is exactly the correct thing
to do.
Best, John.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi John,
I most certainly defer to you on these issues 👍 ! Do you need me to make any changes or can you make them? if the former, what would you like me to do?
Regards,
Moshe