Re: [Boost-users] [Fit] upcoming formal review for Boost.Fit

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Fit] upcoming formal review for Boost.Fit
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-05 06:58:07

Le 02/03/2016 03:57, Steven Watanabe a écrit :
> AMDG
>
> On 02/28/2016 06:15 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> Le 27/02/2016 17:41, Steven Watanabe a écrit :
>>> constexpr infix_adaptor<plus_f> plus = {};
>>> int r = 3 <plus> 2;
>>>
>>>     This is clever idea, but I'd really like to
>>> see an analysis of how it interacts with
>>> operator precedence.
>>>
>>>
>> You should consider the normal precedence for operator<() and
>> operator>() and use parenthesis when you are not sure what will be the
>> result ;-) There is no magic.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> P.S. Paul, maybe you can add something about this in the documentation
>> of infix.
>>
>    That's all I was getting at.  Sure, I
> can work out what happens, but I'd be
> happier if the documentation showed some
> indication that the author had considered
> the issue, and found (a) there's nothing
> to worry about, it will always work correctly,
> or (b) it can only cause problems in some
> obscure circumstances.  Also, if the user
> makes a mistake, how confused can the
> compiler get?
>
>    I'd also like some explanation of how it
> interacts with other kinds of trickiness:
>
> - phoenix::_1 <plus> phoenix::_2
> - BOOST_TEST(1 <plus> 2);
>
>
Paul, do you have something to add?

Vicente