Re: [boost] [contract] Contract Programming Library

Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] Contract Programming Library
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-17 03:05:48

> > it is inevitable, etc., but.. read on. I know at least one library in
> > Boost that also spoils function declarations in order to provide
> > additional functionality: Concept Check library; they may be others
> > too (MPL?).
> > My suggestion is that if there are (or will be) libraries that require
> > spoiling function declarations, they should all provide the same
> > "spoiled" syntax. Otherwise I will be always asking "how do I declare
> > a function in this library?". It would be very convenient if Boost
> > provided one alternative function definition syntax that when used
> > would enable all its libraries to work.
>
> I agree. However, in the past I did look into harmonizing my library
> API with the ones of Boost.ConceptCheck and/or Boost.Parameter but it
> did not seem feasible... I will double check it.

This is not only about clarity. As a super-correct programmer I may want to
apply both concept checking and pre-/post-conditions checking to my functions.

Perhaps, if the 'compromise' syntax is possible, it requires changing
concept-checking library.

Regards,
&rzej