[patch]: Removing duplicate functions, part 3 (and brief copyright question)

[Paolo Carlini]

Chris Jefferson wrote:

>> I doubt it: the __is_heap change is wrong, the arguments are swapped. 
>> Please add
>> testcases and be more careful.
>
> OK, that was just stupid of me, ignore that patch. I'll be more 
> serious and come back later in the week.

;) Sorry about my slighlty harsh reply, but really we should be carefult 
not introducing regressions: a set of consistent testcases seems a good 
method: you did a wonderful job 'til... yesterday ;) In the specific 
case at issue, I see that __is_heap is an extension, as such not 
exercised a lot elsewhere, still debug mode uses it and must be kept 
perfectly functional. No hurry, anyway.

> On a different note, are there offical guidelines on copying code? 
> I've been writing a (very small, very limited) preprocessor library so 
> I can macroise <tuple>, after a week of fun I had managed to create 
> all the functionality I needed except for an O(1) equality testing 
> macro. I knew that boost had one, so I decided to go and have a look 
> to see how they did it. However now I've seen the "trick", I can't 
> think of any other real way of implementing it than basically exactly 
> the same code line-for-line...
>
> Sorry if this question sounds a little silly / paranoid, but in this 
> modern age of copyright issues, and the fact the FSF takes their 
> copyright seriously, I wanted to check I wasn't doing anything wrong.

Eh, this is a mine field, in general, but with boost things should be 
easy. Why don't you contact directly the author of that code, while 
waiting for feedbacks?!?

Paolo.