Re: [boost] GSoC: Enforcing Code Feature Requirements

Subject: Re: [boost] GSoC: Enforcing Code Feature Requirements
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-31 07:38:50

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alp Mestanogullari" <alp_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] GSoC: Enforcing Code Feature Requirements

> 
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Joel Falcou <joel.falcou_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> I like the idea of playign with this, but: isn't this somethign Concept and
>> Concept-based SFINAE should handle ?
> 
> 
> I have always used them to handle such situations. What would be the
> advantages of the approach you describe (Vicente) over this one ?

I have resumed them on the link:

Advantage of this approach:
* Support controlled call to 3pp functions.
* Support operators.
* Allows to specify code features for groups of functions (class)
* No impact on runtime performance.
* Improve diagnostics: static assert is enough explicit.
* the user can specialize the can_call metafunction for specific functions directly.

Liabilities:
* Unable to call different functions depending on the provided features. This needs to maintain the feature parameter.

Best,
Vicente