Re: [boost] Generalized concept usage in Boost libraries

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 
all compilers.

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.