From: Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-29 23:00:17
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:05:19PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
> Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > On Thursday 28 August 2003 01:23 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> The other possible option would have been to simply not give the user
> >> a readable error message. I'm open to opinions that I chose the
> >> wrong balance.
> > So we're breaking code in order to produce a better error message? This seems
> > like the wrong trade-off to make, especially because it means it breaks code
> > when users upgrade from VC6 to VC7; but we want them to upgrade!
> Anyone got a brilliant way to cause vc7 to print the error message?
More generally, is there a generally accepted strategy for Boost
libraries to attempt to force compilers to emit useful diagnostics?
I can imagine there are a number of places where this goes on, and so if
anyone has good domain knowledge about coercing compiliers into emitting
useful diagnotics, it'd be great to have that written down somewhere (or
maybe even turned into some macros possibly).
(Kinda a vague idea-specification, I know.)
-- -Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk