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
> Exactly. One of the goals of concepts is to produce less error output,
> 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
-- 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk