Thanks! I'm also interested if anyone knows of some (free!) self-contained test code for STL. The trouble with just compiling random application code is that the application code has no test suite. An example of a self contained template test would be (from my own test suite):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
template<class T> int f6(T)             { return 1; }
template<class T> int f6(T*, int=1)     { return 2; }

template<class T> int g6(T)             { return 3; }
template<class T> int g6(T*, ...)       { return 4; }

void test6()
{
    int i;
    int *p = 0;

    i = f6(p);
    assert(i == 2);

    i = g6(ip);
    assert(i == 4);
}
---------------------------------------------------------

Mark Evans wrote in message <1103_1001635469@evans>...
>
>Here's a good library for testing the template code. http://www.boost.org/libs/python/doc/index.html
>
>The author David Abrahams sits on the C++ standards committee, or used to.
>
>From a Python development standpoint his library is the absolute best way
to create Python extensions.  It is also a heavily template-laden body of code that breaks a number of compilers.
>
>Mark
>
>
>On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 14:20:39 -0700, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com>
wrote:
>> It still is not C++98 compliant with the templates, it's just a step in
that
>> direction.
>>
>> Jan Knepper wrote in message <3BAE385F.A1AD58A0@smartsoft.cc>...
>> >Wow!
>> >
>> >*    -Ab and -Aw are now always on (meaning that bool and
>> >wchar_t are real types, not typedefs). Warning: This can break
>> >existing code.
>> >*    -Aa is now always on (meaning that operator new[] and
>> >operator delete[] are separately overloadable) Warning: This can
>> >break existing code.
>> >*    parameter-declarations now allowed in function template
>> >template-parameter-list.
>> >*    typename can now appear in template-parameter instead of
>> >class.
>> >*    Explicit template function template-arguments implemented.
>> >*    Partial ordering of function templates implemented.
>> >*    elaborated-type-specifier (i.e. typename) implemented.
>> >*    mutable implemented.
>> >*    explicit implemented.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Walter wrote:
>> >
>> >> www.digitalmars.com/compiler.htm
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 12:27:41 -0700, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:

>www.digitalmars.com/compiler.htm
>
>

Great, will there be a version that 'drops' into a SC++7.5 installation?

Chris

No, I've decided to diverge from that, there doesn't seem a point to it anymore.

Chris wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 12:27:41 -0700, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>>www.digitalmars.com/compiler.htm
>>
>>
>
>Great, will there be a version that 'drops' into a SC++7.5 installation?
>
>Chris
>

On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 20:19:08 -0700, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:

>No, I've decided to diverge from that, there doesn't seem a point to it anymore.
>

Pity, I switched back to SC with the drop in, the IDE and the resource editor work better for me somehow. Even after the patch of the DM++ version using SC components (which worked well on 98SE, but less so on W2000Prof), it still required coaching. Can I lift DM++ components into a SC IDDE, as I do it.

Reagrds, Chris

"Chris" <chris@widdows.demon.nl> wrote in message news:7cfprtcadqrem46gvo05ubpjhiiom7sa08@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 20:19:08 -0700, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
> >No, I've decided to diverge from that, there doesn't seem a point to it anymore.
> >
>
> Pity, I switched back to SC with the drop in, the IDE and the resource editor work better for me somehow. Even after the patch of the DM++
version
> using SC components (which worked well on 98SE, but less so on W2000Prof), it still required coaching. Can I lift DM++ components into a SC IDDE, as
I
> do it.
>
> Reagrds, Chris


You can still drop in the DMC components, I just haven't tested it.

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:05:24 -0700, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>You can still drop in the DMC components, I just haven't tested it.
>

That seems fine, could you elaborate a little (like what components I need
to copy).

Chris

You could just do the compiler exe and dll.

Chris wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:05:24 -0700, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>You can still drop in the DMC components, I just haven't tested it.
>>
>
>That seems fine, could you elaborate a little (like what components I need
>to copy).
>
>Chris