If you have any specific suggestions about what compilers could do to turn these errors from deep within the library implementation, into errors that do not require knowing anything about the library implementation, I would like to hear it, and I'm sure so would compiler writers.
Oh believe me they've heard it from me (or at least I've made some noise about it already). I can make more noise and maybe send in patches but there's other things in this world that concern me (and others) to actually do anything substantial in other fronts.
Could you point me to some links? I am genuinely interested.
Just this one: http://cplusplus-soup.com/2010/11/21/c-hating/ and look at the comments too if you have enough time. :)
I read this article and I don't see any suggestions about how to get compilers to make TMP error messages user-friendly. (Admittedly, I haven't read all the comments as there are very many). So until you point me to something more specific, I remain unconvinced that there's anything substantial that compilers can do about this. But, even if we accept, for discussion's sake, that there are solutions from the compiler side...
as writing working code, having a library that helps you fix your code when it's broken is just as important as having a library that runs your working code (OK, maybe not "just as important" - but quite important).
You got it wrong here: having a *compiler* that helps you fix your code when it's broken is what you want, not a library!
... the reality is that solutions from the compiler side are not forthcoming! So, aren't you being a tad idealistic to reject a solution from the library side because, in your opinion, such a solution is not ideal? Regards, Nate