Re: [boost] [Review:Contract] Some questions

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review:Contract] Some questions
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-02 16:02:09

Le 01/09/12 20:15, Lorenzo Caminiti a écrit :
> On Sep 1, 2012 9:56 AM, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> Le 27/08/12 23:15, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit :
>>
>>> = doxygen =
>>>
>>> BTW, have you tried to generate contract documentation using doxygen?
> Doxygen's preprocessor is too simple and it cannot correctly expand the
> macros. To generate Doxygen docs of code that contains the contract macros,
> you'd have to expand it before running Doxygen using you compiler -E or
> something like Wave so to feed Doxygen the code with the macros already
> expanded. You'd have to expand with all contracts disabled so Doxygen will
> see your normal code and generates docs for it.
NO This was not what I was expecting for doxygen ;-)
>
> A different question (I'm not sure which one you intended to ask) is if my
> lib macros can automatically generate Doxygen's  @pre, @post, and @inv tags
> (they are named something like that).

Yes, something like this is what I was requesting. I don't care about 
whether the macros generate doxygen tags as @pre,@post and @inv. What I 
want is an automatic generation for quickbook documents using doxygen.
> An older rev used to do that--see
> release 0.3.469 in the Release Notes section (idea taken from [Tadin04],
> see Bibliography section and Features at bottom of Contract Programming
> Overview section). However, the Doxygen docs simply repeated the assertion
> code in the docs so it was more or less like looking at the contract code
> from the declarations (without the function definition code). Such
> automatically generated docs where of little value then the macros got too
> complex for the Doxygen pp anyway so this feature was abandoned.

Are you saying that the user can look at the code as it describes 
clearly the pre/post/inv and the documentation is not needed anymore?
Does you mean that people using your Contract library, and wanting an 
hypertext documentation, will need to rewrite the pre/post/inv 
documentation by hand if they want the information is on their hypertext 
docs?

>
>>> = enable-if =
>>>
>>> Have you an example of the use of enable_if and contracts in the
> documentation?
>
> This should work as usual but I just realized I don't have an example for
> it. I'll test it and add an enable_if example.
>

I was wondering if the library should not use enable_if to emulate C++ 
proposed Concepts, as e.g. it seems Boost.Generic does. More I think on 
how you are emulating C++ concepts, more I think that the emulation 
doesn't corresponds to what a C++Concept user could expect. The use of 
Boost.ConceptCheck doesn't seems to match the C++11 proposed Concept 
semantics. I'm not saying that Boost.ConceptCheck is not useful, but the 
semantic is different.

Best,
Vicente