Re: [boost] Feedback request for Invariant Library idea

Hello! I knew about safe_numerics and i felt like it's different from what i want. (tho i didn't check the whole lib) However, i didn't know about constrained_value, and it seems like this lib is exactly the same as mine. Even the design decisions are identical... so i reinvented the wheel. :'( Thank you very much! Attila Szenczi 2017-03-17 10:08 GMT+01:00 Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org>:

2017-03-17 9:17 GMT+01:00 Attila Szenczi via Boost

...

:

...

Hello!

I am asking for some feedback if my library idea is good enough to be part of boost if it will meet the requirements.

C++20(?) contracts will be great, it will allow us to write cleaner interfaces, but i don't feel like it solve every issue i would like to solve.

No, they won't. In particular, there will be no support for invariants. But also, it is not that clear that they will make it into C++20.

...

Do you think it would be a good addition to boost? I appreciate any feedback!

Your library matches close to constrained_value, that has been a candidate for Boost some time ago. Maybe you should check and compare with the author: http://rk.hekko.pl/constrained_value/

Your library -- it looks like it tries to specialize more for type int. A similar functionalit is available in the recently reviewed safe_numerics library. In documentation it even discusses the case like yours, and similar optimizations. You may wish to check it out: https://github.com/robertramey/safe_numerics/

Regards, &rzej;

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/ mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost