220 11706 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Klaim_=2D_Jo=C3=ABl_Lamotte?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Value constraints (or contract programming in C++) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 01:37:23 +0200 Lines: 54 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1f7e2d5bef604fdb712cc X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1404862655 3234 80.91.229.3 (8 Jul 2014 23:37:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 23:37:35 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBD3NR2WQQ4IBBNMB6KOQKGQERDXWYVI@isocpp.org Wed Jul 09 01:37:28 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f200.google.com ([209.85.214.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X4ewx-0007sM-4D for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:37:27 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f200.google.com with SMTP id wn1sf8819399obc.7 for ; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:37:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=Gq7wJK5R0OFu/43Ut8H5ZfDIuNi87htB7vRofKQ1UKU=; b=KyCq/M0GYYbmSbQhEGgfeWPn1BzsmGars6syimL9c6+5LPjr+IllVuw5G+dXkuDqa4 Bh+HFtStdBFGztH5vSABELehAGt4/1qggLYzs7m8DieJ4ScatmdcPG62LHCGTW5qnkaD WK+zNLyLuug1LMoZEbpyhsm8zP2iJqZdEIdW2lAIHzfQdnPailC6uWDCxbAuZxXHRTX0 rvzbLcjaIBky00kivC5wWjS2YGfE+AtPneuXRre9GmcMxuAhFs/GiGiUAI/krespYrcY mtI0uM63/YcS5PCy+G2XmFG416wN351uy31bLAGygtBjQnWN0Fp3IytNQ8JfQaXZc9mm XB7w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmczDoJNpMu5quhylWWTAOHupocSbTJKyapj8H2ZFXOgQWBkN0sVmXwygeU7tcauaurXfgy X-Received: by 10.42.233.133 with SMTP id jy5mr18666365icb.32.1404862646230; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:37:26 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.103.199 with SMTP id fy7ls1074128obb.11.gmail; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:37:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.71.71 with SMTP id s7mr20206579obu.71.1404862643829; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-oa0-x234.google.com (mail-oa0-x234.google.com [2607:f8b0:4003:c02::234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wj3si61105316obc.43.2014.07.08.16.37.23 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mjklaim@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c02::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c02::234; Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id j17so7207658oag.39 for ; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:37:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.241.130 with SMTP id wi2mr43206890obc.27.1404862643680; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.19.20 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:37:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: mjklaim@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mjklaim@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c02::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mjklaim@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:11706 Archived-At: --001a11c1f7e2d5bef604fdb712cc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:12 PM, J. Daniel Garcia wrote: > Overloading on preconditions would mean that preconditions can be > evaluated at compile-time and this not the case. So, overloading on > preconditions does not seem feasible. Indeed, I forgot it was all at run-time. Thanks for the clarification. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. --001a11c1f7e2d5bef604fdb712cc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:12 PM, J. Daniel Garcia <josedaniel.garc= ia@uc3m.es> wrote:
Overloading on preconditions would mean that= preconditions can be evaluated at compile-time and this not the case. So, = overloading on preconditions does not seem feasible.

Indeed, I forgot it was all at run-time. Thanks for the clarifica= tion.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
--001a11c1f7e2d5bef604fdb712cc-- .