[boost] Re: Re: Property_map docs

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-12 00:33:50

"Ani Taggu" <ataggu_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:aqpjsn$t89$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> "Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:aqnhte$mml$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> > "Jeremy Siek" <jsiek_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.44.0211102333330.4424-100000_at_zaphod.osl.iu.edu...
> > > Hi Edward,
> > >
> > > On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Edward Diener wrote:
> > > eddiel> OK, here are some questions regarding the property map
library;
> > > eddiel>
> > > eddiel> 1) What is a property map ? Is it a template class, a class, a
> > > eddiel> template function, a function ?
> > >
> > > It is a "concept", as the term is used in the SGI STL docs:
> > > http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/stl_introduction.html
> > > It has to do with specifying the contract between generic algorithms
> > > (function templates) and the user of such algorithms.
> >
> > I am aware of your defintion of "concept" from Matt Austern's fine book.
> But
> > concepts imply implementations.
> >
>
> I am a frequent listener here and it is quite uncommon to see such
offensive
> language. I wonder how you can "demand" better documentation from the
> library author who had in spare time crafted a library good enough to be
> included in boost.

I didn't "demand" anything. Criticizing what I believe to be inadequate
documentation is not a "demand". If programmers can't ask for better
technology, and make criticisms accordingly, then we are all in a great deal
of trouble professionally. Improving technology can not be done by
pussyfooting around with endless awe and respect in our eyes. I have yet to
see a valid argument against the suggestions and criticisms I posted. The
doc is poor, but if everyone agrees it is good enough and understandable to
them, fine and so be it.

I am appreciative of many, if not almost all, of the fine ideas and
implementations in the Boost libraries. Is it uncriticizable because it is
freely done ? Sometimes criticism is needed to improve technology, and when
that happens we are all winners.