Re: [boost] [guidelines] why template errors suck

Subject: Re: [boost] [guidelines] why template errors suck
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-04 15:55:54

David Abrahams wrote:
> At Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:08:16 -0800,
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>>
>> To summarize - I'm just very uncomfortable with the term
>> "formal symatics" and don't think it can mean anything.
>
> So do I understand correctly that you believe there are no possible
> meaningful formal semantics for "sort?"

I would feel comfortable saying there are meaningful
semantics for "sort".

When I see the term "formal semantics", it conjures
up something along the lines that described in 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_semantics
That it, "formal" suggest to me a level of mathematical rigor
that doesn't exist here.  It may be possible supply such rigor in
this or some other cases, but I don't think that boost documentation
can justify such an effort. I think a clear concise explanation
of what the implemenation has to do is all that is necessary and
all that is generally possible.  I also think that in many cases
it will unavoidable that there will be unforseen ambiguities.  The
usage of the term "formal semantics" suggests that this would
not be the case.  .I'm thinking the usage of the adjetive "formal" in this 
context
is misleading.  That's all.

Robert Ramey