Re: [boost] [contract] extra type requirements for contracts

Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] extra type requirements for contracts
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-19 15:02:42

on Mon Sep 19 2011, lcaminiti <lorcaminiti-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a general issue with contracts. In general, an arbitrary complex
> (const) expression can be used to assert preconditions, postconditions, or
> invariants. Such a complex assertion might introduce an arbitray set of
> extra requirements on the types used, requirements that might not be
> necessary to implement the function body. The extra type requirements
> introduced by the contracts are especially problematic when programming
> templates because the used types are generic and it is not know a priori to
> the function programmer if the generic types will or not satisfy the
> requirements.

If the contract can't be expressed within the constraints, the
constraints are broken, period.

Now, however, the standard contains special hand-wavey language that
says, essentially, "when we use a == b to describe a postcondition we
don't literally mean ==.  We mean that a and b are equivalent" (whatever
that means).  So even if T supports == it doesn't necessarily mean the
standard is going to use it.  I think what it really means is that b is
indistinguishable from any other copy of a.

...which doesn't help you at all in terms of deciding what to actually
/do/, I know... hopefully, though, it muddies the water a bit just in
case it was too clear for you up till now ;-)

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com