Re: [boost] [contract] concepts: pseudo-signatures vs. usage patterns

Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] concepts: pseudo-signatures vs. usage patterns
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-13 21:26:44

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Caveat: I do doubt that you can do the forced conversions in a library
> without loss of efficiency, but it's worth a try anyhow.

Yeah, there's likely going to be a lot of caveats concerning
library-emulated constrained templates since it generally would imply
wrapping the types and probably explicitly qualifying calls to associated
functions. It may end up not really being feasible, but we'll figure that
out when we get there. At the very least, we can get automatic archetype
generation and some checking, which is still useful. Properly constrained
templates may end up being like my approach to library-emulated concept
overloads (that is, technically feasible, but ultimately cumbersome and
possibly not worth it).

-- 
-Matt Calabrese