pfultz2 wrote
Exactly. One of the goals of concepts is to produce less error output, which Boost.ConceptCheck does not achieve.
I would dispute that. Boost.ConceptCheck doesn't produce minimal output error listing, but it produces a lot less than when no concept checking is being used. And it does point to the parameter and type constraints which conflict. So it's better than nothing and not hard to use. But agree that Boost.ConceptCheck is not without problems - it was written over 12 years ago!!!. I'm sure it could be improved with C++11+ and of course I realize that you've submitted a library to do just that! I haven't gotten around to studying it yet - but I am interested. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Another-variant-type-was-peer-review-queu... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.