Autotools

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

Hi all,
        I've been migrating our autoconfiscation process to more recent version of
the autotools, namely, autoconf >= 2.50 and automake >= 1.6. Right now the
modifications are on a branch. Is it okay to merge them on the trunk? Is
there anyone who is stuck with old tools and cannot upgrade?

Later,
        Luigi

[Ferdinando Ametrano-3]

>         I've been migrating our autoconfiscation process to more recent
> version of the autotools, namely, autoconf >= 2.50 and automake >= 1.6.
> Right now the modifications are on a branch. Is it okay to merge them on
> the trunk? Is there anyone who is stuck with old tools and cannot upgrade?
I for one would like to have them merged. Maybe this time things will work
even with cygwin

ciao -- Nando

[Sadruddin Rejeb-4]

Hi Luigi,
> I've been migrating our autoconfiscation process to more recent version of
> the autotools, namely, autoconf >= 2.50 and automake >= 1.6. Right now the
> modifications are on a branch. Is it okay to merge them on the trunk? Is
> there anyone who is stuck with old tools and cannot upgrade?
Definitely yes! I'm getting tired of these warnings when running ./bootstrap

Sad

[Marco Marchioro-2]

At 06:02 PM 11/27/02 +0100, Luigi Ballabio wrote:

>Hi all,
>         I've been migrating our autoconfiscation process to more recent
> version of the autotools, namely, autoconf >= 2.50 and automake >= 1.6.
> Right now the modifications are on a branch. Is it okay to merge them on
> the trunk? Is there anyone who is stuck with old tools and cannot upgrade?
Go ahead Luigi!

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

Hi all,
        as you might have noticed from the flurry of mail from the cvs server, I
merged the autotools-2-50 branch into the trunk. Now you'll need at least
autoconf 2.5x and automake 1.6.x (I think). Let me know if something is broken.

Bye,
        Luigi

[Sadruddin Rejeb-4]

Hello guys,

I'm currently working, among other stuff, on the implementation of technical
analysis oscillators. I would like to suggest to make the History class a
template on the kind of data we want to store. For example, instead of
double, I would like to treat a historical time serie of stock data
represented by a struct (high, low, close, volume).
We could then also use History<Rate> in the XiborManager class and thus use a
custom Rate class to represent  interest rates.
What do you think?

Sad

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

At 11:02 PM 12/18/02 +0100, Sadruddin Rejeb wrote:
>I would like to suggest to make the History class a
>template on the kind of data we want to store. For example, instead of
>double, I would like to treat a historical time serie of stock data
>represented by a struct (high, low, close, volume).

Hi Sad,
         sounds good. Just don't do it right now since we're trying to
freeze the library to branch out a release. As soon as the branch is made
you can start working on it as far as I'm concerned.

>We could then also use History<Rate> in the XiborManager class and thus use a
>custom Rate class to represent  interest rates.

Do you mean that Rate is not satisfactory as a typedef to double? In which
way? (and Nando, I don't want to hear about positive constraints right now)

Later,
         Luigi

[Sadruddin Rejeb-4]

Hi Luigi,
 
> sounds good. Just don't do it right now since we're trying to  
> freeze the library to branch out a release. As soon as the branch is made  
> you can start working on it as far as I'm concerned.
Sure. Do you need any help for the release? I'm available until next
Friday (start of my long due holidays...).
 
> >We could then also use History<Rate> in the XiborManager class and thus use
> >a custom Rate class to represent  interest rates.
> Do you mean that Rate is not satisfactory as a typedef to double? In which
> way? (and Nando, I don't want to hear about positive constraints right
> now)
Ok, I should have said "and thus be able to use a custom Rate class if
needed". For me, double is fine, but I think it's nicer to enforce the use of
the Rate type in these cases.

Sad

[Ferdinando M. Ametrano-2]

>Nando, I don't want to hear about positive constraints right now
you won't


------------
ciao -- Nando