[boost] Re: boost/detail/iterator.hpp update
Brian McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:05:19PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Thursday 28 August 2003 01:23 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
>> >> The other possible option would have been to simply not give the user
>> >> a readable error message. I'm open to opinions that I chose the
>> >> wrong balance.
>> >
>> > So we're breaking code in order to produce a better error message? This seems
>> > like the wrong trade-off to make, especially because it means it breaks code
>> > when users upgrade from VC6 to VC7; but we want them to upgrade!
>>
>> Anyone got a brilliant way to cause vc7 to print the error message?
>
> More generally, is there a generally accepted strategy for Boost
> libraries to attempt to force compilers to emit useful diagnostics?
>
> I can imagine there are a number of places where this goes on, and so if
> anyone has good domain knowledge about coercing compiliers into emitting
> useful diagnotics, it'd be great to have that written down somewhere (or
> maybe even turned into some macros possibly).
>
> (Kinda a vague idea-specification, I know.)
Unfortunately, typedef substitution makes it nearly impossible on some
compilers, namely EDGs and MSVC7.x:
template
struct X
{
typedef int& type;
};
template
struct Y
{
typedef U* type;
};
template
struct composeYX
: Y::type> {};
typedef composeYX::type z;
Nowhere in that message will you see "int&" on compilers which do
typedef substitution :(
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: boost/detail/iterator.hpp update
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:05:19PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote: > Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thursday 28 August 2003 01:23 pm, David Abrahams wrote: > >> The other possible option would have been to simply not give the user > >> a readable error message. I'm open to opinions that I chose the > >> wrong balance. > > > > So we're breaking code in order to produce a better error message? This seems > > like the wrong trade-off to make, especially because it means it breaks code > > when users upgrade from VC6 to VC7; but we want them to upgrade! > > Anyone got a brilliant way to cause vc7 to print the error message? More generally, is there a generally accepted strategy for Boost libraries to attempt to force compilers to emit useful diagnostics? I can imagine there are a number of places where this goes on, and so if anyone has good domain knowledge about coercing compiliers into emitting useful diagnotics, it'd be great to have that written down somewhere (or maybe even turned into some macros possibly). (Kinda a vague idea-specification, I know.) -- -Brian McNamara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: boost/detail/iterator.hpp update
- Original Message - From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:05 PM Subject: Re: boost/detail/iterator.hpp update ... > Anyone got a brilliant way to cause vc7 to print the error message? > #pragma message ( "some text" ) shown during compilation, is good enough? /Pavel ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: boost/detail/iterator.hpp update
Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 28 August 2003 01:23 pm, David Abrahams wrote: >> The other possible option would have been to simply not give the user >> a readable error message. I'm open to opinions that I chose the >> wrong balance. > > So we're breaking code in order to produce a better error message? I suppose that's correct, though I didn't realize it when I was coding it. I guess I'd have to opt against the code breakage. > This seems like the wrong trade-off to make, especially because it > means it breaks code when users upgrade from VC6 to VC7; but we want > them to upgrade! Not to vc7 really; it's more broken than vc6 in some ways ;-) -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: boost/detail/iterator.hpp update
Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 28 August 2003 01:23 pm, David Abrahams wrote: >> The other possible option would have been to simply not give the user >> a readable error message. I'm open to opinions that I chose the >> wrong balance. > > So we're breaking code in order to produce a better error message? This seems > like the wrong trade-off to make, especially because it means it breaks code > when users upgrade from VC6 to VC7; but we want them to upgrade! Anyone got a brilliant way to cause vc7 to print the error message? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
