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

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [review][constrained_value]ReviewofConstrainedValueLibrary begins today
From: John Wilkinson (jwilkinson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-10 10:50:50

I have not looked at the ConstrainedValue library enough to review it,
but from the discussion here the "multi-constraint predicates" are a
somewhat different thing.  Specifically, the disabling of run-time
checking, the ability to query and change constraints at run-time, and
the performance issues for numerics.  Rather than delay a library that
appears useful and promising, and diffuse the testing effort, it might
be better to add multi-constraint predicates later, after the
appropriate requirements and design efforts. 

John

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Robert Kawulak
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 6:38 PM
To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost]
[review][constrained_value]ReviewofConstrainedValueLibrary begins today

> From: Gordon Woodhull
> > 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.

The point is that if such multi-constraint predicates prove needed in
many use
cases, it'd be nice to add them to the library so users don't have to
define
them on their own.

Regards,
Robert

_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users_at_[hidden]
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users