Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Local] Review
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-24 04:25:38
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Joel Falcou <joel.falcou_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 23/11/2011 13:04, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>> For some of our users/problems polymorphism might not be relevant
> If it is not relevant, you dont lose anything, polymorphism incldues
Again, in this context with polymorphism you loose statement syntax
for your function bodies.
>> while using statement syntax for the body might. For those
>> users/problems (3) might be worst than (2) because is does not use
>> statement syntax in its body (worst error messages + less readable by
>> others). We leave that decision up to our library users and we are all
> The readability of error message is nothign more than a strawman argument.
> Lemme paraphrase Eric Niebler on the subject : "Template based library
> outputing walls of error are library with usability bug and these should be
> fixed". We have the tools for that (static assert, non-cascading dispatch on
> error etc), th eproblem is peopel just don't get this and bitch about the
> error instead of filling bugs for the rror to be spotted and corrected.
> It was a time peopel were bitchign about error from std::vector instanciated
> with a non-default constructible type, now everybody get it right.
Again, the argument (which many, many of our library users have made
thus IMO we should not discard) is both the errors and the fact that
the non-statement body syntax is not familiar to many (so not "just
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