Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] Contract Programming Library
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-17 03:05:48
> > it is inevitable, etc., but.. read on. I know at least one library in
> > Boost that also spoils function declarations in order to provide
> > additional functionality: Concept Check library; they may be others
> > too (MPL?).
> > My suggestion is that if there are (or will be) libraries that require
> > spoiling function declarations, they should all provide the same
> > "spoiled" syntax. Otherwise I will be always asking "how do I declare
> > a function in this library?". It would be very convenient if Boost
> > provided one alternative function definition syntax that when used
> > would enable all its libraries to work.
> I agree. However, in the past I did look into harmonizing my library
> API with the ones of Boost.ConceptCheck and/or Boost.Parameter but it
> did not seem feasible... I will double check it.
This is not only about clarity. As a super-correct programmer I may want to
apply both concept checking and pre-/post-conditions checking to my functions.
Perhaps, if the 'compromise' syntax is possible, it requires changing
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk