From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-23 00:57:47
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
| Mat Marcus <mat-boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > --On Saturday, November 15, 2003 1:33 PM -1000 David Abrahams
| > <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
| >> Mat Marcus <mat-boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
| >>> The current proposals address this, but as I mentioned earlier
| >>> there was some pushback from the compiler vendors leading to at
| >>> least one workaround proposal that in my mind resembles named
| >>> conformance.
| >> Really??! I thought the big problem they had was with structural
| >> conformance (?)
| > Um yes. That's what I was trying to say. I'll try again. They had a
| > problem with structural conformance and Dietmar's workaround reminds
| > me of named conformance. Does that agree with your recollection?
| I don't know what "Dietmar's workaround" is, sorry.
Dietmar suggested a declaration mechanism along the lines of
to assert that a given type conforms to a given concept.
Many people have suggested the same.
In fact, we did consider something like that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk