Closed bevanwsjones closed 2 days ago
What is the state of this PR, should we pick it up again?
What is the state of this PR, should we pick it up again?
Want to get #45 in first so we can do some assert checking on the executors.
@greole to complete this merge I think there are two ways to go:
I think we should do a quick rough implementation now because the later we leave it, the more it will be that 'custom' approaches will crop up all over the code base. I also don't think we need to be too fine-grained about it. In my experience the message, line number, and file are good - a stack trace would be great but probably too much for now. A switch for certain checks to be done in 'debug' and 'release' mode. Thoughts?
Develop an 'error' handling strategy and add it in through a separate merge request. We can go simple for now, but at least give it some 'formality'.
If possible I really would like to have some stack trace feature. Unfortunately std::basic_stacktrace
is a c++ 23 feature https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/basic_stacktrace.
Maybe we can take a look at https://github.com/bombela/backward-cpp or https://github.com/jeremy-rifkin/cpptrace. I guess that should be a different PR though.
@bevanwsjones since you're working on this. field could use a std::pair<size_t,size_t> field::range() {return {0, size()};}
function.
@bevanwsjones since you're working on this. field could use a
std::pair<size_t,size_t> field::range() {return {0, size()};}
function.
done
PLEASE MERGE #33 first
Field: