RE: [pooma-dev] RFA: src/NewField Changes

[Julian C. Cummings]

Whew!  I just slogged through the recent e-mail flurries!
Jeffrey, could you please hold off on changes in the
Domain subdirectory such as the one below, regarding
comparisons of unlike types?  I am in the midst of
reworking that section to eliminate the use of enums
in favor of static data members.  This will resolve
this issue completely once my work is complete.  I hope
to have new Domain sources to run by everyone within
the next few days.  Thanks!

By the way, I figured out why the HP aCC compiler was
complaining that "wildcard" was undefined in certain
contexts.  It has to do with the fact that enums are
nested types and thus are not automatically "inherited"
when deriving from a templated base class.  Yuck!
Again, this will all go away with my proposed changes.
Just give me a day or two to complete this.

Thanks, Julian C.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Oldham [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 10:26 AM
To: Scott Haney
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: src/NewField Changes


On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:44:10AM -0700, Scott Haney wrote:
>  On Thursday, March 29, 2001, at 10:35 AM, Jeffrey Oldham wrote:
> >
> > > I don't fully understand why the  typedef is required. But, if it
> > > is
> > > required by the standard, could we put it in the function?
> > >
> >
> > The C++ standard \S 23.1 [Container requirements] requires
> > x::size_type to be an unsigned integral type.  I moved the typedef
> > into the destructor.
> >
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> I realize this. What I didn't understand is what the problems were when
> i in that loop was an int. Did GCC emit a warning or an error. Anyway,
> this isn't that big of a deal. Please feel free to commit.

g++ -Wall emits warnings about comparisons between unsigned and signed
values:

/nfs/oz/home/oldham/pooma/r2/src/NewField/Updater/UpdaterList.h: In
destructor
   `UpdaterListData::~UpdaterListData()':
/nfs/oz/home/oldham/pooma/r2/src/NewField/Updater/UpdaterList.h:92: warning:
comparison
   between signed and unsigned integer expressions

The typedef avoided this warning.

> What was the resolution on all of those static_casts?

The warnings about comparisons between unsigned and signed ints were
the reason for those static_cast's.  I do not know the best solution.
What do you suggest?

/nfs/oz/home/oldham/pooma/r2/src/Domain/DomainTraits.Interval.h: In static
   member function `static void DomainTraits<Interval<1> >::setDomain(int
   (&)[2], const T1&, const T2&) [with T1 = int, T2 = unsigned int]':
/nfs/oz/home/oldham/pooma/r2/src/Domain/Interval.h:365:   instantiated from
here
/nfs/oz/home/oldham/pooma/r2/src/Domain/DomainTraits.Interval.h:266:
warning: comparison
   between signed and unsigned integer expressions

Thanks,
Jeffrey D. Oldham
address@hidden