From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-18 15:45:05
"Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" wrote
>> "Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Your criticism mainly concerned the C++ Concepts section of the
>>> documentation for PQS. What might help is some examples of what you
>>> consider good C++ Concept documentation.
>> The C++ standard does a pretty decent job. There's also the SGI STL
>> website. There's also the Boost Graph library. The "new iterator
>> concepts" document in the iterator library docs does pretty well. And
>> you can always start at
> I have had a look at these sources and I will look at them in more detail,
> however they seem to represent only Concepts with runtime requirements.
I don't think so.
that the syntax is valid is a compile-time requirement. Any
associated semantics are runtime requirements.
100% compile-time requirement.
> Many of the concepts used in PQS library have only compile time
> requirements. The only example of documentation for this type of
> Concept that I know of is MPL.( I assume you see MPL as a good
> example of compile time only concept documentation).
Yes, **in the context of the MPL**. There is a background
assumption that nested members of templates are types and not
values, which you can't reasonably make in the PQS context.
> PQS uses both forms of Concept. Is there any means or language
> convention to distinguish the two forms?
There are not really two different forms AFAICT.
> My current intention is to put the compile-time requirement Concepts
> under a separate section from the runtime requirement Concepts.
Almost every concept you write that has runtime requirements also has
compile-time requirements, so I don't know if this division makes much
sense. But I'm much more concerned with the contents of the concept
descriptions than the order in which they're presented.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk