Menu
▾
▴
opencxx-users
|
From: Stefan S. <sse...@ar...> - 2004-09-29 12:50:47
|
Hi David, David Abrahams wrote: > sizeof(char) == 1 > sizeof(char[2]) == 2 > sizeof(char(&)[2]) == 2 > sizeof(char[3]) == 3 > sizeof(X[N]) == N * sizeof(X) > >There are programs that rely on these relationships. This is the kind of invariants I'm looking for, thanks ! >You're going to need to build in full overload resolution and >template instantiation capability, which is no small job. [...] >Even though it's a big job, it would be a great service to the C++ >community. I could probably find people to help you with it. That would be more than welcome. I'm currently refactoring the C++ parser code adding support for this kind of analysis. Progress can be tracked via the various unit tests I'm putting into place. I'd very much appreciate any help I could get in defining what exactly needs to be done, and of course, in designing and implementing it. Best regards, Stefan |
|
From: Stefan S. <sse...@ar...> - 2004-09-30 14:37:39
|
Hi Eric, I forward this to the OpenCxx list as that's where you'll have better chances to find an answer to your questions... Eric Hopper wrote: >On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 01:41:37AM +0800, Grzegorz Jakacki wrote: > >>LGPL has drawbacks, please consider the fact that Boost has rejected >>it. > > >What are the drawbacks, aside from the fact that it vexes companies who >would like to keep all of their source code secret? Is there a reason >that particular vexation is actually bad for anybody besides the company >who's chafing against it? |
|
From: Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...> - 2004-10-12 11:17:20
|
Stefan Seefeld wrote: > Hi Eric, > > I forward this to the OpenCxx list as that's where you'll have better > chances to find an answer to your questions... > > Eric Hopper wrote: > > >>On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 01:41:37AM +0800, Grzegorz Jakacki wrote: >> >> >>>LGPL has drawbacks, please consider the fact that Boost has rejected >>>it. >> >> >>What are the drawbacks, aside from the fact that it vexes companies who >>would like to keep all of their source code secret? Is there a reason >>that particular vexation is actually bad for anybody besides the company >>who's chafing against it? Pls. google for the answer, this subject has been beaten to death many times on different fora and seems to be religious issue, no point in bringing it here. BR Grzegorz |
|
From: Stefan S. <sse...@ar...> - 2004-10-13 18:15:04
|
Hey Grzegorz, > From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@ac...] > Sent: October 12, 2004 07:12 > Pls. google for the answer, this subject has been beaten to > death many > times on different fora and seems to be religious issue, no point in > bringing it here. The topic doesn't appear to be as dead as you make it sound (as this very thread proves). May I remind you that you were the one bringing the topic up, so all people are asking now is why you insist on not wanting to use LGPL. It seems clear that *the* answer doesn't exist (not on google by any means), so the point of the question as I interpret it was about what your reasons are to refuse it. By the way, you asked for comments on potential licenses for future OpenCxx versions about a month ago. Was there any follow-up ? Regards, Stefan |
|
From: David A. <dav...@rc...> - 2004-10-13 20:03:56
|
Stefan Seefeld <sse...@ar...> writes: > Hey Grzegorz, > >> From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@ac...] >> Sent: October 12, 2004 07:12 > >> Pls. google for the answer, this subject has been beaten to >> death many >> times on different fora and seems to be religious issue, no point in >> bringing it here. > > The topic doesn't appear to be as dead as you make it sound > (as this very thread proves). May I remind you that you were the one > bringing the topic up, so all people are asking now is why you insist > on not wanting to use LGPL. > It seems clear that *the* answer doesn't exist (not on google by any > means), so the point of the question as I interpret it was about > what your reasons are to refuse it. > By the way, you asked for comments on potential licenses for future > OpenCxx versions about a month ago. Was there any follow-up ? FWIW, the reasons that Boost doesn't accept LGPL are at http://tinyurl.com/7x86d -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com |
|
From: Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...> - 2004-10-18 13:12:18
|
Hi, Stefan Seefeld wrote: >>From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@ac...] >>Sent: October 12, 2004 07:12 > > >>Pls. google for the answer, this subject has been beaten to >>death many >>times on different fora and seems to be religious issue, no point in >>bringing it here. > > > The topic doesn't appear to be as dead as you make it sound > (as this very thread proves). May I remind you that you were the one > bringing the topic up, so all people are asking now is why you insist > on not wanting to use LGPL. "All people" means who? So far two persons were asking (you and Eric Hopper). Apart of that you yourself were insisting that this topic is of not particular interest to others: [previous private e-mail:] > I'm replying only to you since I don't think at this point > there is much interest for others (in particular David > is surely not interested in getting dragged into a license > discussion). > It seems clear that *the* answer doesn't exist (not on google by any > means), so the point of the question as I interpret it was about > what your reasons are to refuse it. I have already explained that LGPL is more restrictive than existing OpenC++ license (MIT-style). Mikolaj brings up valid arguments about LGPL complexity, also I treat Boost license rationale seriously. > By the way, you asked for comments on potential licenses for future > OpenCxx versions about a month ago. Was there any follow-up ? Four persons responded, two of them in private e-mails (Hilde opted for Boost license, RodZilla would accept either of LGPL, MIT and Boost). BR Grzegorz |
|
From: David A. <da...@bo...> - 2004-09-29 16:24:49
|
Stefan Seefeld <sse...@ar...> writes: > Hi David, > > David Abrahams wrote: > >> sizeof(char) == 1 >> sizeof(char[2]) == 2 >> sizeof(char(&)[2]) == 2 >> sizeof(char[3]) == 3 >> sizeof(X[N]) == N * sizeof(X) >> >>There are programs that rely on these relationships. > > This is the kind of invariants I'm looking for, thanks ! > >>You're going to need to build in full overload resolution and >>template instantiation capability, which is no small job. > > [...] > >>Even though it's a big job, it would be a great service to the C++ >>community. I could probably find people to help you with it. > > That would be more than welcome. I'm currently refactoring > the C++ parser code adding support for this kind of analysis. > Progress can be tracked via the various unit tests I'm putting > into place. > > I'd very much appreciate any help I could get in defining > what exactly needs to be done, and of course, in designing and > implementing it. Why don't you put out a call for volunteers on the boost-devel list? I will immediately follow up with an endorsement. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X