From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-24 20:10:50
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> I tend to agree on a "moral/aesthetic" level, but on a practical level
> we have to tread carefully. The question, "can we just have an
> operator which produces a compile-time constant value saying whether
> its operand is a valid expression?" has come up a few times in the
> committee. Each time, the implementors looked at their codebases and
> said "oooh, that's really hard to do." I think the short form of the
> reason is that C++ compilers generally don't have the ability to
> recover from errors reliably. That may explain why your 2nd, 3rd,
> 4th... diagnostic messages tend to be useless gibberish ;-)
> So, I'd like to push for something like that but practically speaking
> I'm not sure how to get there.
The problems are not insurmountable though (with an "is_valid_expression").
You aren't dealing with entire language at this point, only an expression.
You'd need an independent expression parser that is coupled to the symbol
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk