On 8/10/2010 11:14 AM, Robert Jones wrote: > Well, as a complete novice to code of this sophistication I > understood that piece perfectly, as far as it goes. Naturally, as the > opening piece of a series it raises far more questions than it > answers.
That's great feedback, thank you. > It also scares me somewhat. This stuff could mark an absolute > explosion of complexity in the code your average jobbing programmer > is expected to get to grips with, and in my experience the technology > is already slipping from the grasp of most of us! When you get this > stuff wrong, what do the error messages look like? Boost.Bind & > Boost.Lambda errors are already enough to send most of us running for > the hills, A great point! (I've held back a whole rant about how long template error messages are library bugs and should be filed as such. That's a whole other blog post.) I sort of address this when I say that a good dsel toolkit would force dsel authors to rigorously define their dsels, leading to "better usage experiences". That's pretty vague, though. I could be more explicit. But certainly the intention here is that proto makes it easier for dsel authors to give their users more succinct error messages. > and tool support is somewhat lacking as far as I know, > being pretty much limited to STLFilt. > > Maybe I'm just too long in the tooth for this! > > Still, great piece, and I look forward to subsequent installments. Thanks, -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ proto mailing list [email protected] http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
