Re: [boost] [proto] _value doesn't enforce zero arity

Subject: Re: [boost] [proto] _value doesn't enforce zero arity
From: Dave Jenkins (david_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-08 15:52:27

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:m28wmbf91i.fsf_at_boostpro.com...
>
> on Tue Apr 07 2009, "troy d. straszheim" <troy-AT-resophonic.com> wrote:
>
>> Gevorg Voskanyan wrote:
>>
>>> How about a macro BOOST_PROTO_EXTRA_CHECKING or something like that to 
>>> have those
>> kind of checks conditionally?
>>
>> I could see a BOOST_MPL_DISABLE_ASSERTS token, behavior analogous to
>> BOOST_DISABLE_ASSERTS.
>
> It's a very good idea, IMO.  Open a ticket?

This flag sounds the same as the BOOST_COMPILE_TIME_DEBUG flag proposed by 
Eric
Niebler here: http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2009/01/44451.php.
Joel de Guzman suggested making it an integer (0 == no CT debug, 1..3 CT 
debug levels) here:
 http://lists.boost.org/boostusers/2009/01/44452.php.

My thought is to have one of the integer debug levels enable compile-time 
tracing of
"interesting" template instantiations using Steven Watanabe's 
template_profiler.
For this to work, the library author would have to mark the "interesting"
template classes and functions with "PROFILE_TRACER()" and bypass
Steven's preprocessing stage.  Is this workable and/or a good idea?

Dave Jenkins