220 11732 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 17:17:19 +0200 Lines: 93 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <6da50966-e3d3-441d-8474-614a51b035df@isocpp.org> <3D5B2169-72D6-473E-87DF-32D6D159A455@gmail.com> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2f1124c5a7604fdc434f5 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1404919061 24442 80.91.229.3 (9 Jul 2014 15:17:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 15:17:41 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBD3NR2WQQ4IBBAF26WOQKGQEP5GFOLI@isocpp.org Wed Jul 09 17:17:34 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oa0-f70.google.com ([209.85.219.70]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X4tcX-0001eo-PA for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:17:22 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id o6sf9972193oag.5 for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:17:20 -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=Istm0sPARbrzqyjNlQFeeipFki7I2iqgN1zD/CATphc=; b=GBKrOxCU6wavpV7lc6Vr6JXsDbtrPH8ZkJ8U8dGFjOfPZqjictLrYAbNZGjzU/d4r1 a0sfLcWSqWWw9ETOTMcGKuI0rwMkeMBXy/ejdtSht/kfTb6ORfNGQn5A3PtwdExvdZ/D vFXRlK9YyNlrLK7xJJcTSFe4jWRkOIZDa9LMV3zoaQgqw0JnqIud7L0QD3Brg8tQaMp8 2GuB48GlFLdrIVJjZ21ADpK5B6fVcf2aN8wQNkzi1I/fuGtFfeWHVvxfudw2cXfwH7R0 HnVWlUwEje9MqPrgaVGdZvWQYlFH/WflsSrq09H6/5p4K5WlvaY+1mFz+oIvn6EfDjkH 7peA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm2vG1fEo3xC2jZ5gPHEEwIYKviulX7hxDl0DI2C8YuP+v0CQzdm+XABZmNoLIp4cYZK+zT X-Received: by 10.50.25.102 with SMTP id b6mr4742354igg.4.1404919040847; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:17:20 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.42.195 with SMTP id q3ls1264320obl.97.gmail; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.28.105 with SMTP id a9mr19094042obh.16.1404919039874; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-oa0-x22b.google.com (mail-oa0-x22b.google.com [2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gb6si61219167obb.19.2014.07.09.08.17.19 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mjklaim@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22b; Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id o6so8333011oag.16 for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.213.100 with SMTP id nr4mr48027028obc.39.1404919039676; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.19.20 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3D5B2169-72D6-473E-87DF-32D6D159A455@gmail.com> 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::22b 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:11732 Archived-At: --001a11c2f1124c5a7604fdc434f5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:45 PM, David Krauss wrote: > > On 2014=E2=80=9307=E2=80=9309, at 9:09 PM, Klaim - Jo=C3=ABl Lamotte wrote: > > > Another=E2=80=8B point was raised few months ago on Boost mailing list,= relative > to the Centralized error checking feature from the related papers: > > its often more useful to the user to be able to specify/change error > handling (or not) behaviour for a specific library (or several) rather th= an > for the whole application. > > I have no specific suggestion of how this could be made possible but I > think it's an interesting point to maybe > > explore in future papers related to yours (but I guess it's too early t= o > explore now). > > Is there anything to do differently than NDEBUG applied to linked > libraries, and whatever equivalent library-specific flags that might > control debugging in inline functions? If we are talking about a decision taken at runtime, then yes it's totally different. --=20 ---=20 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 e= mail 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-proposa= ls/. --001a11c2f1124c5a7604fdc434f5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:45 PM, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:
=
On 2014=E2=80=9307=E2=80=9309, at 9:09 PM, Klaim - Jo=C3=ABl Lamotte <mjklaim@gmail.com> wrote:

> Another=E2=80=8B point was raised few months ago on Boost mailing list= , relative to the Centralized error checking feature from the related paper= s:
> its often more useful to the user to be able to specify/change error h= andling (or not) behaviour for a specific library (or several) rather than = for the whole application.
> I have no specific suggestion of how this could be made possible but I= think it's an interesting point to maybe
> explore in future papers related to yours (but I guess it's too ea= rly to explore now).

Is there anything to do differently than NDEBUG applied to link= ed libraries, and whatever equivalent library-specific flags that might con= trol debugging in inline functions?

If we are talking= about a decision taken at runtime, then yes it's totally different.=C2= =A0


<= /div>

--

---
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>.
--001a11c2f1124c5a7604fdc434f5-- .