Mathias Gaunard-2 wrote:
Andrew Sutton wrote:
I'm also replying to Dave Abrahams here.
a. I doubt we could do as well with error messages
You can't, but static_assert helps a bit.
What exactly can't be done? Let's consider function templates. Using concepts, the overload is masked if the concept is not fulfilled. Using SFINAE, the overload is masked if the expressions lead to errors.
In both cases, the compiler just says there is no match, and eventually gives a list of possible matches.
When you talk about using SFINAE, are you thinking on the Concept Traits library (http://neoscientists.org/~tschwinger/boostdev/concept_traits/libs/concept_tr...) that Terje Slettebø and Tobias Schwinger have abandoned because the C++0x should have Concepts?
c. It wouldn't have the right syntax
Well, personally, I think defining concepts in terms of expressions is better than doing so in terms of signatures. But is the syntax really important?
Not to me. What is important is that this will allows people to experiment with Concepts in a portable way waiting for the new standard. The transition should be much more smooth.
d. It wouldn't do the right thing
we can approximate with SFINAE partial ordering, isn't it? Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-C%2B%2B0x--Report-from-Frankfurt-committee-meeting-tp... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.