"Andy Little"
"David Abrahams" wrote
"Andy Little" writes
"David Abrahams" wrote
"Andy Little" writes
I am not concerned with the intractible problem of sequence identity ( whatever that means) at the moment.
Then what was this indictment about?
Me:
The result of the transform is only required to be "concept-identical" to the result you're looking for.
You: IMO that behaviour is sloppy.
What can I say? I acknowledge that mpl is a monumental piece of work . Wonderful... but far from perfect.
I don't think the fact that it's imperfect gives you the right to label any arbitrary design decision as sloppy.
I dont follow? "any arbitrary decision"?
Yes, in this case the particular design decision that
transform
You seem to have no justification at all for calling the behavior mentioned above "sloppy," notwithstanding that it reminds you of another behavior that you dislike.
The behaviour of having a return type defined as a concept rather than a type in this case is unnecessarily imprecise.
You haven't proven that about transform, which is the case in question.
In practise (Based on my experience in pqs physical quantities library) it causes an explosion of arbitrary types all meaning the same thing. This in turn leads to slow compile times and overuse of compiler resources and with the fatal effect in some cases, that the compiler cannot cope resulting in a failed compilation.
An alternative suggestion is to explicitly specify what seems to be the actual behaviour of arithmetic operations on int_'s, long's etc in the documentation.
Stop. The statement in question is about transform, not about int_'s, long_'s, etc. You condemned Aleksey's design decision about the result of transform and have repeatedly claimed that it is unnecessary and could easily be done better. Please demonstrate, or retract your claim. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com