Re: [proto] Active operator/function generation checking

2011-01-30 Thread Joel Falcou
On 31/01/11 04:38, Eric Niebler wrote: This is a judgment call that only you, as library author, can make. If doing the checking early imposes too high a compile-time requirement, then it may make sense to delay it until it's less expensive to do, and accept worse error messages. *nods* But at

Re: [proto] Active operator/function generation checking

2011-01-30 Thread Eric Niebler
On 1/31/2011 2:55 AM, Joel Falcou wrote: > I'm trying to polish the last layer of compile time error handling in nt2. > my concern at the moment is that, if have a function foo(a,b) that works > on any real a and any char b, i dont want my foo function working on nt2 > container to work with nothin

[proto] Active operator/function generation checking

2011-01-30 Thread Joel Falcou
I'm trying to polish the last layer of compile time error handling in nt2. my concern at the moment is that, if have a function foo(a,b) that works on any real a and any char b, i dont want my foo function working on nt2 container to work with nothing but matrix of real and matrix of char. nt2 has