search for: _tree

...'::StrCmp' would lose some const-volatile qualifiers in order to call 'bool `anonymous-namespace'::StrCmp::operator ()(const char *,const char *)' f:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\xtree(1169) : while compiling class template member function 'std::_Tree_nod<_Traits>::_Node *std::_Tree<_Traits>::_Lbound(const char *const &) const' with [ _Traits=std::_Tmap_traits<const char *,unsigned int,`anonymous-namespace'::StrCmp,std::allocator<std::pair<const char *const ,unsigned int>>,false&...

...,_Ax> &' from 'unsigned int' c:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\string(128) : see declaration of 'std::operator`<'' c:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\xutility(196) : error C2784: 'bool std::operator <(const std::_Tree<_Traits> &,const std::_Tree<_Traits> &)' : could not deduce template argument for 'const std::_Tree<_Traits> &' from 'unsigned int' c:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\xtree(1360) : see declaration of 'std::operator`&lt...

...>from 'unsigned int' > c:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio >8\VC\include\string(128) : see declaration of 'std::operator`<'' >c:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\xutility(196) : >error C2784: 'bool std::operator <(const std::_Tree<_Traits> &,const >std::_Tree<_Traits> &)' : could not deduce template argument for >'const std::_Tree<_Traits> &' from 'unsigned int' > c:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio >8\VC\include\xtree(1360) : see declaration of 's...

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:42:00PM +0000, Villmow, Micah wrote: > Oops, I had the arguments backward. Patch re-attached with the correct > ordering The casts for spelling NULL with explicit cast shouldn't be necessary. What is the error you are dealing with? Joerg

OvermindDL1 a écrit : > Been trying to build the trunk to test some things for about a week > now using VS8 (VS2k5). Tons of Warnings (like things first being > declared struct, being redefined class and so forth, those need to be > fixed, but are otherwise not harmful), and a *lot* of errors. Being > trunk I figured just the normal trunk-type issues, but it has been > going on

...lose some const-volatile > qualifiers in order to call 'bool > `anonymous-namespace'::StrCmp::operator ()(const char *,const char *)' > f:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio > 8\VC\include\xtree(1169) : while compiling class template member > function 'std::_Tree_nod<_Traits>::_Node > *std::_Tree<_Traits>::_Lbound(const char *const &) const' > with > [ > _Traits=std::_Tmap_traits<const char *,unsigned > int,`anonymous-namespace'::StrCmp,std::allocator<std::pair<const char > *const ,...

Been trying to build the trunk to test some things for about a week now using VS8 (VS2k5). Tons of Warnings (like things first being declared struct, being redefined class and so forth, those need to be fixed, but are otherwise not harmful), and a *lot* of errors. Being trunk I figured just the normal trunk-type issues, but it has been going on for a while now, so figured it would be good to

I never want to alter a model(row). When a model has been changed i want a new copy to be created. What is the best way to implement this? I think using callbacks might be the answer. So model.save will create a new row, and leave the old one unchanged. Any ideas? I can easily implement this in the controller but i''d rather it be done transparently. Also errors should be passed back

...ement); + var s = Sortable.sortables[element.id]; if(s) { Draggables.removeObserver(s.element); @@ -689,14 +690,14 @@ var Sortable = { tree: options.tree, hoverclass: options.hoverclass, onHover: Sortable.onHover - } + }; var options_for_tree = { onHover: Sortable.onEmptyHover, overlap: options.overlap, containment: options.containment, hoverclass: options.hoverclass - } + }; // fix for gecko engine Element.cleanWhitespace(element); @@ -832,7 +833,7 @@ var Sortable = {...

Note that one of the 8 patches (#6) will be sent separately in reply to this email, as some of the replaced lines are too long, so git won't let me send the email. However, there is nothing wrong with that patch, and it should be applied in the sequence listed below. Note also that I assume this will be tested on a clean f11 install, rather than an upgrade of an existing ovirt server