Re: [boost] [dbc] Interest in Design By Contract for C++?

Subject: Re: [boost] [dbc] Interest in Design By Contract for C++?
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-19 03:30:02

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Thomas Klimpel
<Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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

Yes, Boost.Parameter is a bit odd as well.  And it makes me hesitate
to use it - not avoid it, but hesitate - ie depends on where/how it is
used.  Yet, in general, I like DSEL (domain-specific embedded
languages), and have written a few.
But here's the thing:

   they are **domain-specific**

This, for me at least, makes a big difference.  I don't mind seeing
some strangeness within a certain domain or to solve a particular
problem.  But when the augmented language is NOT domain-specific, and
instead is used all over your code, then I start thinking that maybe
we should just be using a different language.

Maybe that's just me.  And really, I'm just realizing this 'criteria'
of mine right now.  It is not the only factor I use when looking at
macros/DSELs/libraries/coding-standards/idioms/etc, but thinking back
to things I've liked/disliked, it seems to be important to me.

Hope that makes sense, even though I realize I didn't really explain
the difference or give examples, etc.

Just my opinion,
Tony

P.S. I also just hate macros.  Maybe for the same reason.