Re: [boost] Re: Re: Formal review: Optional library

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-16 18:08:28

"William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Augustus Saunders said:

> I wouldn't be overly concerned.  I'd find this to be a programmer error
> (passing a type to a template that doesn't meet the template's
> requirements).  Concept checking libraries can even be employed to insure
> such mistakes don't happen (assuming the concepts are well defined enough
> for such checks to be written), though this would be a QoI issue in the
> implementation of the template.

Those concept checks can only look at syntactic and type constraints,
not semantic (behavioral) ones like the ones they're worried about.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution