On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 06:32:29PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> So did I quote you incorrectly? (below)
>
> > Do I not remember André telling me that code like this is very bad
> > practise:
> >
> > ostringstream word;
> > word << "some string";
> > ...
> > word.str("");
> >
> > because resettin
On Thursday 14 March 2002 6:17 pm, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 06:15:36PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > We certainly haven't used "ends" at all.
>
> 'ends' is not necessary when using ostringstreams. And one does not have to
> handle freezing.
>
> Andre'
So did I quote you
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 06:15:36PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> We certainly haven't used "ends" at all.
'ends' is not necessary when using ostringstreams. And one does not have to
handle freezing.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz .. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 14 March 2002 6:05 pm, Kuba Ober wrote:
Kuba,
we have been wondering about whether our use of stringstream was correct. It
may well be that it isn't, hence the problems I have been occasionally
suffereing from with my (DEC Alpha) implementation of the STL.
We certainly haven't use
On Thursday 07 March 2002 13:10, you wrote:
> Do I not remember André telling me that code like this is very bad
> practise:
>
> ostringstream word;
> word << "some string";
> ...
> word.str("");
>
> because resetting the the pointers inside the ostringstream isn't
> guaranteed? Instead he suggest
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 03:15:15PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I actually thingk that the whole functions should be rewritten into
> two parts... one part that just emmits "lines" to an ostream, and
> another that takes this stream and breaks overlong lines.
Probably yes. Especially if on
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 07-Mar-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> What about this patch...
>
| Well a fast look would tell me that it could work. Just one thing
| does lyxstring have the push_back() functionallity?
sure it does.
--
Lgb
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thursday 07 March 2002 2:15 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> I actually thingk that the whole functions should be rewritten into
>> two parts... one part that just emmits "lines" to an ostream, and
>> another that takes this stream and breaks overlo
On 07-Mar-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> What about this patch...
Well a fast look would tell me that it could work. Just one thing
does lyxstring have the push_back() functionallity?
Jug
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Dr. Jürgen Vigna
On Thursday 07 March 2002 2:15 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I actually thingk that the whole functions should be rewritten into
> two parts... one part that just emmits "lines" to an ostream, and
> another that takes this stream and breaks overlong lines.
>
> Hmm...
>
> What about this patch
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 07-Mar-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> well yes... _but_ that is not absolutely true I guess...
>>
>> I think we can have an algorithm that is almost as good without the
>> word stringstream complexity.
>>
>> (and the best would be to have a
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thursday 07 March 2002 1:34 pm, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> > a patch like this: (I have not even tried to compile it...)
>>
>> SIGH would you like me to have a go? Ok.
>
| Actually, having read Jürgen's response, I'm not going to do this. I don't
On 07-Mar-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> well yes... _but_ that is not absolutely true I guess...
>
> I think we can have an algorithm that is almost as good without the
> word stringstream complexity.
>
> (and the best would be to have a lyxasciistreambuf...)
Well we can have this for 1.
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thursday 07 March 2002 1:22 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | On Thursday 07 March 2002 12:10 pm, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> >> Do I not remember André telling me that code like this is very bad
| prac
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 07-Mar-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> - buffer << word.str() << "\n";
>> - word.str("");
>> + buffer << "\n";
>> + last_word_l
On Thursday 07 March 2002 1:34 pm, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > a patch like this: (I have not even tried to compile it...)
>
> SIGH would you like me to have a go? Ok.
Actually, having read Jürgen's response, I'm not going to do this. I don't
want to replace one bug with another!
A
On Thursday 07 March 2002 1:22 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Thursday 07 March 2002 12:10 pm, Angus Leeming wrote:
> >> Do I not remember André telling me that code like this is very bad
practise:
> >>
> >> ostringstream word;
> >> word << "
On 07-Mar-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> - buffer << word.str() << "\n";
> - word.str("");
> + buffer << "\n";
> + last_word_length = 0;
Well this patch will most probably f
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thursday 07 March 2002 12:10 pm, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> Do I not remember André telling me that code like this is very bad practise:
>>
>> ostringstream word;
>> word << "some string";
>> ...
>> word.str("");
>
| or even
>
| word = ostringstream()
On Thursday 07 March 2002 12:10 pm, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Do I not remember André telling me that code like this is very bad practise:
>
> ostringstream word;
> word << "some string";
> ...
> word.str("");
or even
word = ostringstream();
Angus
20 matches
Mail list logo
