Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Nathan Ridge (zeratul976_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-25 12:15:46
> >>> If you have any specific suggestions about what compilers could do to turn
> >>> these errors from deep within the library implementation, into errors
> >>> that do not require knowing anything about the library implementation,
> >>> I would like to hear it, and I'm sure so would compiler writers.
> >> Oh believe me they've heard it from me (or at least I've made some
> >> noise about it already). I can make more noise and maybe send in
> >> patches but there's other things in this world that concern me (and
> >> others) to actually do anything substantial in other fronts.
> > Could you point me to some links? I am genuinely interested.
> Just this one: http://cplusplus-soup.com/2010/11/21/c-hating/ and look
> at the comments too if you have enough time. :)
I read this article and I don't see any suggestions about how to get compilers
to make TMP error messages user-friendly. (Admittedly, I haven't read all
the comments as there are very many).
So until you point me to something more specific, I remain unconvinced
that there's anything substantial that compilers can do about this.
But, even if we accept, for discussion's sake, that there are solutions from
the compiler side...
>> as writing working code, having a library that helps you fix your code
>> when it's broken is just as important as having a library that runs
>> your working code (OK, maybe not "just as important" - but quite
>You got it wrong here: having a *compiler* that helps you fix your
>code when it's broken is what you want, not a library!
... the reality is that solutions from the compiler side are not forthcoming!
So, aren't you being a tad idealistic to reject a solution from the library
side because, in your opinion, such a solution is not ideal?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk