Re: [boost] [review][constrained_value] Review of Constrained Value Library begins today

Subject: Re: [boost] [review][constrained_value] Review of Constrained Value Library begins today
From: Sebastian Redl (sebastian.redl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-01 12:32:43

Zach Laine wrote:
> The docs include some example code on "using constrained objects in
> debug mode only", and make reference to using unconstrained<> to allow
> use of the .value() member function.  Why not replace the .value()
> member function with a free function
> boost::constrained_value::value(), and then write something like this?
>
> #ifndef NDEBUG
> typedef bounded_int<int, 0, 100>::type my_int;
> #else
> typedef int my_int;
> #  if IM_FINE_WITH_MACROS
> #    define value(x) x
> #  else
> inline int value(int x) { return x; }
> #  endif
> #endif
>
> Then, as long as the user always writes "value(x)", letting ADL pick
> up the boost::constrained_value::value() free function, the
> macro/inline function above will silently kick in instead if defined.
> This gets rid of any requirements on the quality of the optimizer in
> order to get performance just like an int.  Did you already try this
> and find it problematic?
>   
Intuitively, I'd say this is problematic - the value(int) version 
wouldn't get picked up by ADL.

Sebastian