On 8/10/2010 12:03 PM, Thomas Heller wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Eric Niebler <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 8/10/2010 11:14 AM, Robert Jones wrote: >>> 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, >> >> (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 think we see a great improvement with static_assert in C++0x!
Undoubtedly true, but I can't confirm firsthand. I don't do any C++0x programming. > And we are potentially able to reduce error message if SFINAE is > applied more often, with the disadvantage of losing information on > what failed. I disagree about SFINAE. I think it leads to horrible error messages like, "No function overload matched. Here are the signatures of the (5, 20, 100+) functions that failed to match (and I'm not going to tell you why)". I've had better luck with tag dispatching, with a catch-all handler that asserts with a "if-you-get-here-it-means-this" message. But all that will go in my rant. ;-) -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ proto mailing list [email protected] http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
