From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-08 05:46:24
"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Andy Little wrote:
>> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>> Now I shall sit back and watch the goalposts move as if by magic ...
>>> Thought experiment #1: is there possible outcome here -- other than me
>>> conceding that I "specifically told you" something I never said or
>>> meant to say -- that would convince you the goalposts aren't being
>>> Thought experiment #2: what does someone who makes such a remark hope
>>> to accomplish by it, and what does it _actually_ accomplish?
>> I don't think there is anything I want to say in response.
> I tell you what it accomplishes for me -- it makes me want to put the person
> that writes this sort of hyperbole into the /dev/null filter. Unfortunately
> since I'm a list moderator I can't actually do that...
You may want to read this so that you can hone your skills:
Alternatively an apology for the above remarks would be welcome.
>> I hope the bullet points will be useful to those considering writing Concept
> In case you missed it, there is a fair amount of Concept documentation used by
> several Boost libraries.
You might like to read some of the other posts in this thread. It might
clarify for you the subject under discussion, and as a general rule IMHO, it is
wise to do that before jumping in with inflammatory comments such as the above.
Of course this is all now apparently part of the C++ language, and there is only
one conforming compiler. And I quote:
"once we have concept support in the language we will be using
pseudosignatures rather than valid expressions to express syntactic
constraints, so we can expect that to change. In the meantime,
though, the things that can be expressed using established
conventions should be so expressed"
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