Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [constrained_value] Constrained Value review results
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-29 12:14:59

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Woodhull" <gordon_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [constrained_value] Constrained Value review results

> On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:56 AM, "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I don't know what problems Phoenix has. Maybe we need to wait for a new library, but in the context of the Constraint library I find that all these predicates are no so hard to implement and will give a real power to the library.
> I don't think they necessarily belong to this library but they would make a nice companion - constraints to go along with the constrained values...

Unfortunately if they a re not added in the library we will need to wait for a volunter to provide someting like that as a separated library. Think for example on the Serialize library. There are two separated part archive and serialization. You could have two parts constraint and constrained_value.

> To spell it out, I think we are talking about a set of predicates sort of like those in std:: except that one of the arguments is bound to a static value. Right?

> constexpr is going to be very nice for constrained_value!

Yes, I agree. constexpr will help a lot of libraries and applications that need to improve the performance to the point to make some computations at compile time :)


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at