220 11733 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 17:21:47 +0200 Lines: 132 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=089e01227f0448f69904fdc44430 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1404919318 27966 80.91.229.3 (9 Jul 2014 15:21:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 15:21:58 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBD3NR2WQQ4IBBDF46WOQKGQENFGP6EI@isocpp.org Wed Jul 09 17:21:52 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qa0-f69.google.com ([209.85.216.69]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X4tgr-0004xc-KV for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:21:49 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-qa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id v10sf3180720qac.8 for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:21:48 -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=HBmQ2+DpMFx++H8bB2OD1nYsWZnHVURiL2G26bwWTng=; b=hIFumEsgaTJ67LfhC9eZAQAiXCNw/+QgiiecaM548vQBYnvfdJaknWmChGVNrMur2C Ayag2eqfCmyXjzebo4iLBiOWupgk5BI1Cd70OmTeC/gHn3dNu2d4xkb4ksSXcEtxDWPw f8ZhkVJUpN2gVi8cC0UFQvKlkljBQy/dw/ym3pexakxr3PHbBfCl547CsLgAVGvc7+yO a4pAut77YAZiYOERarO/o51VUx3Tq/YkuItkQWsWRnj6vAhIfzri7xKxkTdgMUAG7Ixx 6Im+CXRHPfefV0FnfUnQWCPiWEJSMsH5TeivwqFUpaOCy65d/G1Hiob8QQw82mEbWuzr G6NA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkwlBxahRaflZPWr5FxUA9ZkxscxpTvmMQ43Raih1bok1h2nVLMeCfoEVJ0L6yeH7C6X8MF X-Received: by 10.236.31.40 with SMTP id l28mr17528957yha.34.1404919308811; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:21:48 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.58.83 with SMTP id o19ls1254324obq.78.gmail; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:21:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.34.7 with SMTP id v7mr48755527oei.9.1404919308028; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-oa0-x230.google.com (mail-oa0-x230.google.com [2607:f8b0:4003:c02::230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id uq9si63971361obc.92.2014.07.09.08.21.48 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mjklaim@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c02::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c02::230; Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m1so2331112oag.7 for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:21:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.79.68 with SMTP id h4mr33839988oex.7.1404919307890; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.19.20 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 08:21:47 -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::230 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:11733 Archived-At: --089e01227f0448f69904fdc44430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To clarify, I'm talking only about the decision of how to handle a detected contract failure, assuming that the contract checking is actually running. Something close to set_terminate() but as I was saying there would be a "need" to have one per "library". Something close to NDEBUG would be for compile/link-time choice that is generating, or not, the contract checking code, which is more obvious to imagine from current classic assertion macro implementations. On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Klaim - Jo=C3=ABl Lamotte wrote: > > 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 pape= rs: >> > 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 t= han >> 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 >> to 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 totall= y > 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/. --089e01227f0448f69904fdc44430 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To clarify, I'm talking only about the decision of how= to handle a=C2=A0detected=C2=A0contract failure, assuming that the contrac= t checking is actually running.
Something close to set_terminate() but = as I was saying there would be a "need" to have one per "lib= rary".

Something close to NDEBUG would be for compile/link-tim= e choice that is generating, or not, the contract checking code, which is m= ore obvious to imagine from current=C2=A0
classic assertion macro= implementations.


On Wed,= Jul 9, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Klaim - Jo=C3=ABl Lamotte <mjklaim@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
=
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&= gt; 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 t= alking about a decision taken at runtime, then yes it's totally differe= nt.=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>.
--089e01227f0448f69904fdc44430-- .