On 9/24/2010 8:22 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
This is borderline self-promotion and I fretted posting this. But we a community of advanced C++ library developers and I'd really like feedback about these issues. And they really do involve Boost library development. If we could reach agreement about these techniques, we might want to integrate them into Boost's coding guidelines.
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/diddg/expressive_c_why_template...
Comments?
would all this boil down to the following guidlines.
a) All template libraries should use boost::concepts ?
Certainly Concept_check or something like it has a big role to play in this. But I wouldn't know how to use Concept_check to verify that an expression template matches a grammar, for instance. It's not the whole story. Though perhaps I don't know enough about the concept_check library to see how it can apply to proto expressions and grammars. Suggestions? Also, I would prefer C++0x static_assert to the concept_check macros because the error messages can be much nicer. I think the answer is that the concept_check library badly needs a C++0x makeover.
b) All template libraries should try to factor implemenations so that compile errors are not propagated?
Yes. And: detailed comments should be left near any static assertions or concept checks, since that's where the unlucky few will end up. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com