On Tuesday 10 August 2010 17:21:53 Eric Niebler wrote: > 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.
To follow up, I like it too! > > > 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. I think this will greatly change when we have static assert support on the majorities of compiler. > > 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, _______________________________________________ proto mailing list [email protected] http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
