Robert Kawulak wrote:
From: Edward Diener
I am hoping that you see a use for multi-bounds constraints without the need to provide predicates. A predicate is much more flexible but a non-predictae syntax for multi-bound constraints can be much easier and quicker for the end user to specify.
Predicates are the central part of the design of the library and this is rather not going to change. Even if the library would provide support for multi-bounded objects, the constraint would be implemented as a predicate, just like it is in the case of bounded objects right now.
I meant that the user should not have to specify his own predicate in order to get multi-bounded objects just as the user does not have to specify his own predicate to get bounded objects.
BTW, I don't think that the syntax for providing an arbitrary number of bounds at compile time would be attractive, not to say easy for the users... At least not until we have compilers supporting variadic templates.
I agree completely. I realized that without variadic templates multi-bounded objects would probably need a constructor taking the bounds rather than as template parameters.
The idea of a multi-bounded constraint is that the set of valid values should be able to encompass any value for that type
I really have no idea what you wanted to say here...
Only that the notation for a multi-bounded constraint should allow any number of single bounds.