bump version to 12.2.2-pve1

[ceph.git] / ceph / src / boost / libs / vmd / doc / vmd_constraints.qbk

[/ 
  (C) Copyright Edward Diener 2011-2015
  Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
  (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
  http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt).
]

[section:vmd_constraints Macro constraints]

When discussing the BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY macro I mentioned constraining input to
the macro. Now I will discuss what this means in terms of preprocessor metaprogramming
and input to macros in general.

[heading Constrained input]

When a programmer designs any kinds of callables in C++ ( functions, member functions etc. ), 
he specifies what the types of input and the return value are. The C++ compiler enforces this
specification at compile time. Similarly at run-time a callable may check that its
input falls within certain documented and defined boundaries and react accordingly
if it does not. This is all part of the constraints for any callable in C++ and should
be documented by any good programmer.

The C++ preprocessor is much "dumber" than the C++ compiler and even with the preprocessor
metaprogramming constructs which Paul Mensonides has created in Boost PP there is far less
the preprocessor metaprogrammer can do at preprocessing time to constrain argument input
to a macro than a programmer can do at compile-time and/or at run-time to constrain argument
input to a C++ callable. Nevertheless it is perfectly valid to document what a macro expects
as its argument input and, if a programmer does not follow the constraint, the macro will fail
to work properly. In the ideal case in preprocessor metaprogramming the macro could tell whether
or not the constraint was met and could issue some sort of intelligible preprocessing error
when this occurred, but even within the reality of preprocessor metaprogramming with Boost PP
this is not always possible to do. Nevertheless if the user of a macro  
does not follow the constraints for a macro parameter, as specified in the 
documentation of a particular macro being invoked, any error which occurs is the 
fault of that user. I realize that this may go against the strongly
held concept that programming errors must always be met with some sort of compile-time or
run-time occurrence which allows the programmer to correct the error, rather than a silent failure
which masks the error. Because the preprocessor is "dumber" and cannot provide this occurrence
in all cases the error could unfortunately be masked, despite the fact that the documentation 
specifies the correct input constraint(s). In the case of the already discussed 
macro BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY, this masking of the error could only occur with a preprocessor ( Visual C++ )
which is not C++ standard conformant.

The Boost PP library does have a way of generating a preprocessing error, without generating preprocessor 
output, but once again this way does not work with the non-conformant preprocessor of Visual C++. The means
to do so using Boost PP is through the BOOST_PP_ASSERT macro. As will be seen and discussed later VMD has
an equivalent macro which will work with Visual C++ by producing incorrect C++ output rather than a preprocessing
error, but even this is not a complete solution since the incorrect C++ output produced could be hidden.

Even the effort to produce a preprocessing error, or incorrect output inducing a compile-time error,
does not solve the problem of constrained input for preprocessor metaprogramming. Often it is impossible 
to determine if the input meets the constraints which the preprocessor metaprogrammer places on it and 
documents. Certain preprocessing tokens cannot be checked reliably for particular values, or a range of 
values, without the checking mechanism itself creating a preprocessing error or undefined behavior.

This does not mean that one should give up attempting to check macro input constraints. If it can be done
I see the value of such checks and a number of VMD macros, discussed later, are designed as preprocessing 
input constraint checking macros. But the most important thing when dealing with macro input constraints is 
that they should be carefully documented, and that the programmer should know that if the constraints are 
not met either preprocessing errors or incorrect macro results could be the results.

The VMD library, in order to present more preprocessor programming functionality and 
flexibility, allows that erroneous results could occur if certain input constraints are not met, whether the 
erroneous results are preprocessing errors or incorrect output from a VMD macro. At the same time the VMD does 
everything that the preprocessor is capable of doing to check the input constraints, and carefully documents 
for each macro in the library what the input for each could be in order to avoid erroneous output.

Documented macro input constraints are just as valid in the preprocessor as 
compile-time/run-time constraints are valid in C++, even if the detection of such constraints 
and/or the handling of constraints that are not met are far more difficult,
if not impossible, in the preprocessor than in the compile-time/run-time processing of C++.

The VMD library uses constraints for most of it macros and the documentation for those macros
mentions the constraints that apply in order to use the macro.

[endsect]