Re: [boost] [C++0x] Report from Frankfurt committee meeting

Subject: Re: [boost] [C++0x] Report from Frankfurt committee meeting
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-11 16:00:46

Would it not be possible to produce something like a "C++ Lint" (missing
clever name here).  Which would be

a) Written in portable C++
b) Would permit "concept" syntax to be added in as a tagged comment like

/* indiana concept syntax
...
*/

which would produce concept errors.

This would

a) be a practical tool for working programmers
b) would be useful regardless of the C++ compiler being used
c) would be quicker and easier to make than a full compiler
d) wouldn't have to be very fast as it would only be invoked "occasionally"
e) would provide feedback to the C++ community regarding
the utility and practicality of any concept proposal.

Robert Ramey

Andrew Sutton wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Raindog <raindog_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> Joseph Gauterin wrote:
>>
>>> That's a pity - a lot of libraries could have greatly benefitted
>>> from concepts. On the plus side, we really don't want to end up
>>> with a repeat of the export debacle or similar.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I think it is a tragedy. While reading about why not to use C++, or
>> STL, or Boost, the biggest issue I've seen recently is "template
>> error messages are too large and meaningless". Bjarne has said that
>> one C++0x's was to make it more user friendly, but it appears we
>> will lose the biggest feature towards that goal.
>>
>
> Disappointing, but hardly tragic. It would have been tragic if the
> standard adopted a definition of concepts that failed to improve
> support for generic programming or made it worse worse. I think Doug
> Gregor - somewhere in the comments here:
> http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/08/what-happened-in-frankfurt/ -
> summarizes the problem nicely.
>
> "What was missing from these discussions was the input of everyday
>> programmers: we lacked enough usage experience with concepts to
>> determine whether potential problems would affect real-world code,
>> or how often these problems would occur".
>
>
> Andrew Sutton
> andrew.n.sutton_at_[hidden]
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost