Re: [boost] [contract] Mixin Boost.Contract and Boost.STM

Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] Mixin Boost.Contract and Boost.STM
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-21 16:06:39

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lorenzo Caminiti" <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] Mixin Boost.Contract and Boost.STM

Hi Vicente,

>> You have no comented my suggestion to don't duplicate the signature. Instead of letting the C++ signature, generate it from the macro, so
>>
>> void push_back(const T& element)
>> CONTRACT_FUNCTION( (inherit)(pushable<T>) // No class type.
>> (public) (void) (push_back)( (const T&)(element) )
>>
>> will become
>>
>> // NO NEED OF THE C++ SIGNATURE
>> // void push_back(const T& element)
>> CONTRACT_FUNCTION( (inherit)(pushable<T>) // No class type.
>> (public) (void) (push_back)( (const T&)(element) )
>>
>
> Hi, please could you comment my suggestion?

This is possible (I will have to extend the signature-sequence just a
bit to include default argument values, exception specifications,
member list initializations, and absolutely anything else you can
program in a C++ function declaration -- but most of the declaration
tokens are already there).

There is a question of what syntax is more readable vs. which syntax
requires more programmers' coding work. I have asked this question to
all Boosters -- see separate email thread.

Thanks,
Lorenzo
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

I see the probelems this could introduce. I think howver thatn we should try to provide interfaces that don't impose the user to repeat redundant information.

Vicente