Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: Re: [boost] [dbc] Interest in Design By Contract for C++?
From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-18 18:01:16

Next message: Andrey Semashev: "Re: [boost] [spirit] Support for one-pass iterators?"
Previous message: OvermindDL1: "Re: [boost] The C++ Post-Processor"
In reply to: Gottlob Frege: "Re: [boost] [dbc] Interest in Design By Contract for C++?"
Next in thread: Gottlob Frege: "Re: [boost] [dbc] Interest in Design By Contract for C++?"
Reply: Gottlob Frege: "Re: [boost] [dbc] Interest in Design By Contract for C++?"

Gottlob Frege wrote:
> Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> > *** To me, this is a key question for Boost programmers: IS THIS C++
> > SYNTAX TOO FOREIGN LOOKING OR DIFFICULT TO USE TO BE ACCEPTABLE? ***
>
> Yes. (Sorry.)

Doesn't Boost.Parameter also uses a foreign looking syntax? But I admit that "DBC_MEM_FUN" is a bit cryptic. How about BOOST_DBC_MEMBER_FUNCTION?

Regards,
Thomas

Next message: Andrey Semashev: "Re: [boost] [spirit] Support for one-pass iterators?"
Previous message: OvermindDL1: "Re: [boost] The C++ Post-Processor"
In reply to: Gottlob Frege: "Re: [boost] [dbc] Interest in Design By Contract for C++?"
Next in thread: Gottlob Frege: "Re: [boost] [dbc] Interest in Design By Contract for C++?"
Reply: Gottlob Frege: "Re: [boost] [dbc] Interest in Design By Contract for C++?"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk