Dave Abrahams wrote
on Sun Dec 11 2011, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti@> wrote:
The goal here is to use Boost.Contract to /completely/ specify the interface for the positive abstract data type.
For whomever is curious, the Boost.Contract named and deduced parameter examples now compile: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/contract/libs/contract/doc/html/cont...
Here's an example that uses a bit of everything: Contracts, concepts, named/deduced function and template parameters:
(gulp) wow! That's _very_ impressive.
It's just too bad the syntax is so intrusive on that of C++; it's like a whole new language to learn, debug, etc. There are a few contract
I wanted to see if and how Contract Programming could be implemented within C++. That came to the (big) cost of: 1) The macro syntax (plus the cryptic pp/compiler errors it generates if you miss something, these errors could be improved a bit but the issue is systematic- the pp is just not capable of detecting syntax errors...). 2) Increased compilation time (x 30 !!!) (but if you disable contract compilation you get ~ x 5 plus it /might/ be possible to improve the implementation to reduce compilation time...). Anyway, now we know just how much C++ macros can be abused ;)
programming frameworks out there that are much less capable but at the same time don't intrude so much (e.g. http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/DesignByContract.aspx which probably only builds on MSVC).
I looked at that before (in fact, I think I studied /all/ Contract Programming work for C++ that was ever done, including A++!!). As far I remember, that approach has a few major issues: No subcontracting and the contracts are in the definitions (instead of declarations).
I wonder if it's possible to make parts of this framework usable in the same way, so that people can approach it more gradually.
If anything, it'd be nice to have a front-end (external to C++) that translates a syntax like the one of N1962 into my library macros. My library syntax follows closely the one of N1962 (pp a part) so this shouldn't be too bad to implement... Thanks. --Lorenzo -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/contract-syntax-redesign-tp3563993p429310... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.