"Paul Mensonides" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do, however, agree that we need more support from the language for
> generic programming and some type of standardized API into the
> compiler's type system. And I definitely think that "undefined
> behavior" is unreasonable when the situation is easily diagnosable
> and not platform specific.
I tend to agree on a "moral/aesthetic" level, but on a practical level
we have to tread carefully. The question, "can we just have an
operator which produces a compile-time constant value saying whether
its operand is a valid expression?" has come up a few times in the
committee. Each time, the implementors looked at their codebases and
said "oooh, that's really hard to do." I think the short form of the
reason is that C++ compilers generally don't have the ability to
recover from errors reliably. That may explain why your 2nd, 3rd,
4th... diagnostic messages tend to be useless gibberish ;-)
So, I'd like to push for something like that but practically speaking
I'm not sure how to get there.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
