Re: [boost] Generic type inferencer function?

Subject: Re: [boost] Generic type inferencer function?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-28 19:40:22

Le 21/12/2015 15:14, Nat Goodspeed a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 18 December 2015 at 10:37, Stefan Seefeld <stefan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 18.12.2015 11:20, Nat Goodspeed wrote:
>>>> Am I overlooking a generic boost::make<something>() of this general form?
>>> Given the small amount of code potentially to be reused, what would be
>>> the advantage of having a generic version ? The goal of abstraction
>>> should be clarity, but more often than not, generalizing code rips off
>>> not only unnecessary details but also its meaning, making the code
>>> harder, not easier, to understand.
>> I disagree.  The make_* functions are just noise, and I'd love to see a
>> generic one.  While return type deduction has made it somewhat easier to
>> write these functions, a generic one would be superior.
> Nevin speaks truth: the make_SomeTemplate() functions in our code base
> are just boilerplate.
>
> More importantly, encountering make_SomeTemplate() in the code
> *increases* the cognitive load on the maintainer. What does
> make_SomeTemplate() do? Oh: it returns an instance of
> SomeTemplate<deduced args>. Every such call requires an indirection:
> the maintainer must look up make_SomeTemplate() to discover its role.
>
> If we introduce a std::make() template function, that becomes part of
> the maintainer's working vocabulary. S/he only needs to look it up
> *once*.
>
> You could reasonably argue that a consistent naming convention
> (make_SomeTemplate() should surely return an instance of SomeTemplate)
> nearly eliminates the cognitive burden. And you'd almost be right --
> if we could trust that no such function ever snuck in any side
> effects.  :-(
>
> I would counter that std::make<SomeTemplate>() is an even clearer
> "naming convention." Moreover, I could be pretty confident that
> std::make() would have no undocumented side effects.
>
> I applaud Vicente's work at
> https://github.com/viboes/std-make
Thanks.
> Vicente, would you be willing to float the library via Boost?
>
>

https://github.com/viboes/std-make contains more than make<TMPL>().
What exactly would you like to see in Boost?

Vicente