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
proto@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto

Reply via email to