Re: FWD:Re: refactoring
Joel de Guzman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.documentation.synopsis |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Thursday 24 March 2005 20:17, Hartmut Kaiser wrote: > >>Stefan Seefeld wrote: >> >>>I agree. I was actually thinking of traces of all the >>>decisions a compiler does implicitely when looking up >>>symbols, instantiating templates (SFINAE !), etc., because >>>without these a generated error may be quite misleading. >>>Concept checks would be nice, too. I wonder how Richard >>>Kelly's work with synopsis is going... >> >>The information which I'm really missing most of the time is: >> >>1) which type actually got instantiated and at which instantiation point >>2) which parameter types a certain template function got instantiated with >> >>Certainly, both of which can be deduced by special tricks, but it would be >>very useful to have this information more easily available. > > > Given that templates can be considered a programming language, it would be > nice to have a debugger like gdb for them. > > Say, this should be possible: > [...] This is a natural offshoot of what I was alluding to in my other post re: interpreting the C++ meta template language. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net