On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:58:14 am Warren Young wrote:
> I didn't mean to imply that this can't or shouldn't be fixed. I was
> just pointing out why it doesn't work *yet*.
Yes, I understood. I really just need this sorted, so I thought I'd
> To make Null<> truly transparent, we need to add a lot of wrappers to it
> to call functions of the same name on the underlying data object. I've
> added a Wishlist item to do this at least for the std::string interface.
Yes, even though the test case I wrote works, my actual project isn't
working - I'm getting:
Failed to find MySQL C API type ID for N7mysqlpp6StringE
because it's an exception and because gdb doesn't handle STL (and templates in
general) very well I still haven't found out where this is occurring.
Hopefully there's not more required to make this work in mysqlpp.
Any suggestions while I search out this message?
> > I've followed the instructions from SVN in HACKERS.txt.
> Yes, and beautifully so. I wish all patches I received were this clean.
Thanks. I try to do my best. :-)
And your instructions are very clear and easy to follow. I think the
additions you've just made to HACKERS.txt are a really good improvement.
> What your test did is better done as modifications to load_jpeg and
> cgi_jpeg, which I've done. You might look the new versions over to see
> that they're testing what you need them to.
Yes, that makes sense. To be honest, the thought of changing an example was
scary - I think that meant updating the documentation too...which seemed a
bit "over the top".
Perhaps something about updating the doco if examples are added or changed -
when and when not to update doco.
There's a problem with your change to the jpeg examples....
Your change doesn't do the critical part....which is to do:
That's the call that triggers the compilation problem.
Just declaring the SSQLS column as Null<sql_blob> is harmless (FWICR) until
you try to insert the beast.
> > There are no changes to the bmark.txt output - it doesn't count the
> > number of unit tests or their output, apparently.
> Right. test/* is supposed to run silently on success. This is another
> difference between it and examples/*.
That makes sense.
Russell Robinson (russellr@stripped)