Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [review][constrained_value] Review ofConstrainedValueLibrary begins today

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [review][constrained_value] Review ofConstrainedValueLibrary begins today
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-08 23:51:54

On Dec 8, 2008, at 7:24 PM, Robert Kawulak wrote:

>> 	> From: jesseperla
>>
>> 	> The only other things that I would say need to be thought  
>> through in
>> the design is unions of constraints instead of just intersections  
>> of them. For
>> example, I was checking this out a while back, and it manages the  
>> sets of
>> intervals/etc. well: http://www.herold-faulhaber.de/itl/
>>
> Well, maybe in the future. This should be relatively easy to add as  
> extension to
> the library, but may require some time to define the requirements  
> and interface
> well.

I think this is solved as long as any predicate functor is accepted,  
which will require testing which I will be glad to help with.  Again,  
it's just plain old std::logical_* templates.

> I think the best solution for dynamic constraints union (or  
> intersection) is to
> use boost::signal, and this is how I would implement this. Again,  
> this is a
> possible addition to the library in the future if it proves  
> generally needed.

Ditto.  Nothing needs to be added to the library, but a bunch of stuff  
needs to get tested.