Subject: Re: [boost] Review Request: Creasing (Sequence Properties)
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-27 18:41:07
2010/1/27 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>:
> Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>> > That's an excellent question. I, too, foresaw its
>> > usefulness in assertions.
>> > I can imagine those doing DBC would like it, too. However,
>> > I can imagine
>> > examining file, network, or user input to ensure the data
>> > fits some ordering criteria, too.
>> . . . more of the (initially) asserting-the-invariant type of use.
> The latter were not, in my mind, assertion uses,
> but rather run-time, production code tests to determine
> whether to accept or reject an input.
I've looked in boost_1_41_0 . There are four (4) uses of
is_sorted, all in asserts in
> Because folks will continue to use C++98/03 for some time, it is
> reasonable for Boost to provide a fallback for what's to come.
> Consequently, there's room yet to put this predicate into Boost.
>> Remains the question, if the variants of
>> are to be added as algorithms, which conjures up another intersting
>> Are there criteria to be fulfilled to maintain the minimality
>> of a set of free algorithms?
> I understand the desire to keep the set small enough to
> be manageable,
I think the clearness of the library interfaces is very important
and the quest for criteria and guidelines is helpful.
> but it should be large enough to avoid the need to repeat
> (and rediscover) common recipes. Are those four
> predicates sufficiently useful to justify being documented,
> tested, and maintained in Boost? If not, they can be
> illustrated as examples for use of is_sorted.
I'd prefer the latter.
Good night from (freezing) Europe