[boost] Re: Re: Property_map docs

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-14 19:17:18

One more suggestion which you can follow or not:

Show the code for at least one complete implementation of property map, no
matter how practically non-useful or simple it may be, based on your
concepts in a clear manner. Then someone trying to understand your concept
will understand what practical use your idea may have for their own
implementations.

Thanks !

"Jeremy Siek" <jsiek_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:2147483647.1037292139@[10.56.73.193]...
> Hi Edward,
>
> What you say below is an excellent suggestion, and I'll add that
> to the introduction in the docs for property map.
>
> Best Regards,
> Jeremy
>
> --On Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:23 PM -0500 Edward Diener
> <eddielee_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > I would still say to anyone willing to listen that the doc should spell
> > this out, ie. "all these concepts are for you the implementor to put
> > together to create the generic functions that work using the categories
> > mentioned. There is no implementation here." If I had read that I might
> > still have been interested in the concepts as pure ideas, but I would
> > have probably moved on pretty quickly, or further looked into the BGL to
> > see what was a practical implementation of this concept, but I would not
> > have posted anything here regarding the doc which I clearly didn't
> > understand and couldn't make heads or tails out of. It was my
frustration
> > about reading the pieces of what I though was an implementation, and not
> > having any idea how these pieces were supposed to fit together to form
> > some sort of reality, that led to my frustration and initial post.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>