"Arkadiy Vertleyb" wrote ...
I will try to implement such registrations for mpl::vector[n], as an example. However, I think it's ultimately up to the library authors do decide whether or not to make their libraries typeof-enabled (I would be happy to provide any help on the subject).
Types are an implementation detail in mpl , so as I understand it, even if I as a user ,currently register the actual types of the result, then there is no guarantee that they will remain the same in the next version of the
"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote library,
which makes theoretically for high maintenance unless the library author deals with it instead. I guess its not to bad in practise, but means my quantity library is relying on artefacts of the implementation if I use mpl, and I dont really like that :-(
BTW... I guess it might be glaringly obvious, but it might be worth mentioning in the documentation that when the inbuilt error output fails regarding lack of type registration( When pages and pages of template parameters appear) ,
This is one problem. Another problem is that, if somebody else also registers MPL types (which is quite likely due to its popularity), any attempt to use your libs together will result in compile errors due to double MPL registration. That's why I think only library authors should register their types. In case it's not possible (STL, for example) this is done by the typeof library itself. As a (temporary?) workaround, I can suggest you to define your own sequences by deriving them from mpl::vector, register them, and ask your users to use them instead of mpl::vector to supply type sequences to your templates. I am thinking of using this approach with RTL. that
using typeid(T).name() will provide useful information on the make-up of a particular type, an alternative aid to finding the particular types that havent been registered. Maybe its too obvious too mention but I forgot about it recently. After I started using this approach it dramatically speeded up my debugging.
So that you can catch all of them at once instead of one-by-one, as the error messages arrive. Sounds reasonable. Regards, Arkadiy