Subject: Re: [boost] Generalized concept usage in Boost libraries
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-27 17:56:54
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> I'll shot a few questions right away. How does it affect compilation
> times and source code size? How widely is it supported among legacy
> compilers? Does it introduce any side dependencies?
According to the documentation, there is no runtime overhead.
As for portability, I don't know, but a quick look suggests it supports
Still, if concept checking was disabled by default, portability or
dependency on that library wouldn't be an issue.
> Are there any
> estimates on how it affects library developing time (based on the amount
> of code written, for example)?
Writing the concepts correctly may be the most difficult (re-using
pre-made ones helps); integrating them with code is just a matter of
putting a big (arguably ugly) macro instead of the return type.
> I'm asking because your proposal sounds like an overhaul of Boost
> libraries and a possible obstacle for getting new libraries into Boost.
> I, as an upcoming Boost.Log library author, am concerned whether I have
> to spend extra time and effort to embed Boost.ConceptCheck into my
> library to get it accepted.
Even if it eventually gets adopted as a guideline, I'm fairly sure you
could still get libraries accepted into Boost if you provide a rationale
as to why your library doesn't support it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk