Boost logo

Boost :

From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-17 12:39:28

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]>
> That is a problem, but so too is the increasing pain of
> specifying a desireable combination of policies. What about
> using a single policy argument with everything combined? That
> means you can use a single class (template) or use a class
> template that permits specifying various pieces -- not unlike
> shown above -- into one class that can be the constrained_value
> parameter.
> The advantage of this approach is that it gives the policy
> authors greater flexibility. They can write monolithic policy
> classes, if desireable. They can assemble a class template that
> gives select configurability or one that makes it possible to
> supply each policy independently as you've shown. As part of the
> library, you could even supply the latter class template, so the
> library would support both extremes out of the box.

I agree. I just posted a latest version at which has only has two
policies passed to a constrained_value type, a constraints_policy and an
implicit_conversion flag. This flag I believe is best left out of the
constraints_policy but I could be convinced otherwise.

There is now a small demonstration program at which has some example policies.

Christopher Diggins

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at