Re: [boost] [Concepts] Definition. Was [GSoC] [Boost.Hana] Formal review request

Subject: Re: [boost] [Concepts] Definition. Was [GSoC] [Boost.Hana] Formal review request
From: pfultz2 (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-08-16 22:11:00

> I on the other hand believe that type constraints pre-Concepts-Lite
> are a bad thing, and I wish the compiler wasn't so stupid - moreover,
> I know the compiler soon won't be so stupid.

Type constraints in C++ work the same way, currently, as they will when
Concepts Lites arrive(with the exception of specializations vs overloading).
If you believe type constraints are bad in pre-Concepts Lite, then the
arrival
of Concepts Lite won't change your opinion on type constraints.

Concept Lites are not some silver bullet that will make libraries have clean
error messages and fast compiles. The truth is, the type requirements need
to
be specified, and library writers need to think about these type
requirements,
document them, and check they are fulfilled using either Boost.ConceptCheck,
SFINAE type traits, or in the future `concept bool`(ie Concepts Lite).

Paul Fultz II

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Concepts-Definition-Was-GSoC-Boost-Hana-Formal-review-request-tp4666011p4666457.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.