Re: Possible regression in boost 1.61

On 27/05/2016 4:39 PM, Peter Gerell wrote:
>> A "breaking change", in my world, is a documented behavior, or contract if you will, that has changed from one version to the next. What I don't understand was the
>> underlying reason why there was a "breaking change"
>> as you claim. So, can you please elaborate?
>
> I see what you mean.
> The new behavior is correct according to the documentation.
>
>> Given a and b are parsers, and A is the attribute type of a, and unused_type is the attribute type of b, then the attribute type of a >> b (a << b) will be A as well.
>> This rule applies regardless of the position the element exposing the unused_type is at.
>
> So instead of breaking change could it be considered a bug fix?
> X3 from boost 1.60 did not propagate the attribute this way for our rule containing a sequence of two parser where one had the attribute discarded by an omit directive.

If this "new" behavior is according to the documentation, then it is a bug
fix alright. Yes, I recall (myself or someone else) working on this fix,
among others.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.ciere.com
http://boost-spirit.com
http://www.cycfi.com/


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity 
planning reports. https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/305295220;132659582;e