Problems with the new concepts checking code (boost)

[Phil Edwards]

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 02:43:33AM +0200, Peter Schmid wrote:
> >Did you change the name of the guarding macro in the
> >Boost header?
> Yes, finally I did that to get
> /libs/concept_check/concept_check_test.cpp to compile.   

Something is certainly broken somewhere.  I would have expected changing
the guarding header to break things, not fix them.


> >That was a design decision for Boost; Jeremy et al knows about it.
> >(See the Boost web page for more on that one.)
> I have read that document sometime before. I was aware that the
> messages were less concise, but did not expect this increase in
> verbosity, since the checking "code was simplified" according to the
> documentation shipped with boost.  

Just because the code was simplified doesn't mean that the compiler's
diagnostics became shorter...


> In the file boost_concept_check.h from libstdc++ there is a note that
> this code is based on version 1.12.0 of the Boost library, maybe these
> checking routines  are incompatible with version 1.21.1 of the boost
> repository?

The note on 1.12.0 was based on email with the author.  I don't know where
1.21.1 is coming from.  I can't find anything marked 1.21.1 in the Boost
CVS repository.


Let me see how the boost testsuite behaves on my machine.  I would definitely
like to get this cleaned up and fixed soon; I fear that if we keep removing
the checks nobody will ever use them.  If I do not find a better solution
by Monday I'll disable them by default.  (Turning them off in the 2.92
snapshot would probably be wise.)


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.