Re: [boost] [Developing for Boost saves time]( was Re: Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue mem)

Subject: Re: [boost] [Developing for Boost saves time]( was Re: Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue mem)
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-05 13:34:52

pfultz2 wrote
> Exactly. One of the goals of concepts is to produce less error output,
> which
> Boost.ConceptCheck does not achieve.

I would dispute that.  Boost.ConceptCheck doesn't produce minimal output
error listing, but it produces a lot less than when no concept checking 
is being used.  And it does point to the parameter and type constraints
which conflict.  So it's better than nothing and not hard to use.

But agree that Boost.ConceptCheck is not without problems - it 
was written over 12 years ago!!!.  I'm sure it could be improved with
C++11+ and of course I realize that you've submitted a library to do 
just that!  I haven't gotten around to studying it yet - but I am
interested.

Robert Ramey

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Another-variant-type-was-peer-review-queue-tardiness-was-Cleaning-out-the-Boost-review-queue-Review--tp4674046p4674157.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.