Subject: Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries
From: Lubomir Bourdev (lbourdev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-26 05:33:27
On 3/26/10 2:05 AM, "Joel Falcou" <joel.falcou_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Lubomir Bourdev wrote:
>>> Also, GIL can spit some really nasty error messages. Not your fault,
>>> but can be a little scarey.
>> I have some thoughts about this as well. It is possible to write a script
>> that filters this giant error output and returns a much more compact and
>> human readable error description. For example, replace the page-long
>> description of an 8-bit rgb view with 'rgb8_view_t', etc.
> I never really used GIL but, are those long errors possibly be changed
> into smaller SFINAE or static assert check so you only got a simple
> static_assert***FAILURE*** or a no such function message ?
> We had the same kind of problem in NT² and we took some time putting
> MPL_ASSERT or enable_if in critical code path so errors went nicer.
GIL uses the concept check library (enabled if you #define
BOOST_GIL_USE_CONCEPT_CHECK, disabled by default). So you can try enabling
this and it might help.
However, we haven't been methodically placing a check for every single
concept in every single place. That would make GIL a lot bigger. It also
would put a significant toll on compile time.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk