Subject: Re: [boost] Feedback request for Invariant Library idea
From: Attila Szenczi (melkonka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-17 09:43:32
I knew about safe_numerics and i felt like it's different from what i want.
(tho i didn't check the whole lib)
However, i didn't know about constrained_value, and it seems like this lib
is exactly the same as mine. Even the design decisions are identical... so
i reinvented the wheel. :'(
Thank you very much!
2017-03-17 10:08 GMT+01:00 Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost <
> 2017-03-17 9:17 GMT+01:00 Attila Szenczi via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]
> > Hello!
> > I am asking for some feedback if my library idea is good enough to be
> > of boost if it will meet the requirements.
> > C++20(?) contracts will be great, it will allow us to write cleaner
> > interfaces, but i don't feel like it solve every issue i would like to
> > solve.
> No, they won't. In particular, there will be no support for invariants. But
> also, it is not that clear that they will make it into C++20.
> > Do you think it would be a good addition to boost? I appreciate any
> > feedback!
> Your library matches close to constrained_value, that has been a candidate
> for Boost some time ago. Maybe you should check and compare with the
> Your library -- it looks like it tries to specialize more for type int. A
> similar functionalit is available in the recently reviewed safe_numerics
> library. In documentation it even discusses the case like yours, and
> similar optimizations. You may wish to check it out:
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk