Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [result_of] Make `cpp0x_result_of_impl` public
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-27 16:55:07

On 3/27/2012 1:10 PM, Nathan Ridge wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:00:19 -0700
>> From: eric_at_[hidden]
>> To: daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden]
>> CC: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] [result_of] Make `cpp0x_result_of_impl` public
>> On 3/27/2012 12:48 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2012 11:49 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 1:52 AM, Michel Morin wrote:
>>>>>>> There are two implementations of boost::result_of: a TR1-style
>>>>>>> implementation and a decltype-based implementation. While
>>>>>>> the TR1-style implementation has a public interface `boost::tr1_result_of`,
>>>>>>> decltype-based one doesn't have a public interface.
>>>>>> Yes, I'm the one responsible for this change.
>>>>>>> boost::result_of use decltype-based implementation.
>>>>>>> But this is not always a viable solution, since this breaks
>>>>>>> some Boost libraries.
>>>>>>> So how about adding `boost::cxx11_result_of` as public interface
>>>>>>> of the decltype-based implementation?
>>>>>>> Attached a patch to add `boost::cxx11_result_of`.
>>>>>>> (This patch also changes the name of `cpp0x_result_of_impl`
>>>>>>> to `cxx11_result_of_impl` to reflect the recent discussion on
>>>>>>> the cpp/cxx naming.)
>>>>>> The patch looks fine, and I guess I'm as qualified to apply it as
>>>>>> anybody. But it doesn't have docs and tests. Care to address that? The
>>>>>> docs probably only need a line or two, and you can copy the tests for
>>>>>> tr1_result_of.
>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree that cxx11_result_of is a good idea. The plan was for boost::result_of to become a C++11 result_of as soon as we're comfortable flicking the switch so that it's on by default (on platforms that can support it). Michel, do you just want a C++11 result_of that works out-of-the-box or do you really need a separate interface in addition to boost::result_of?
>>>> There are places where a decltype-based result_of is safe, even if N3256
>>>> isn't implemented. In that case, cxx11_result_of would be the only
>>>> option, since boost::result_of would still defer to tr1_result_of.
>>> I would prefer, rather than fracturing the API, that we provide decltype-based boost::result_of by default on compilers that provide a reasonable decltype implementation, even if it's not fully N3256 compliant, with a well-documented caveat that boost::result_of depends on the compiler's decltype. For those who would rather have TR1 result_of than a result_of using non-N3256 decltype, they can use the existing tr1::result_of or boost::tr1_result_of.
>> This will badly and needlessly break valid code both within boost and in
>> the wild for a large segment of Boost's users. Why would you prefer
>> doing that than taking the safer course?
> Why not implement boost::result_of using decltype only on compilers that have N3256 decltype,
> and give users with compilers that have non-N3256 decltype the option of turning on

Because BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_DECLTYPE is a big hammer, and if someone
uses that hammer with a non-N3256 compiler, there will be much
collateral damage. Innocent bystanders. Think of the children.

Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing

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