Re: [boost] Re: compile time member detection

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-23 01:02:21

Brian McNamara <lorgon_at_[hidden]> writes:

| On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:07:40PM -0800, Mat Marcus wrote:
| > FYI: Current spelling of the concept declarations in the usage-pattern 
| > approach (although this) is likely to change:
| > 
| > concept Clonable {
| >    constraints(Clonable c) {
| >        clone(c);
| >    };
| > };
| > 
| > or equivalently using the so-called pseudo-signature approach (I 
| > currently prefer this approach):
| > 
| > concept Clonable {
| >    clone(Clonable)->Clonable
| > };
| 
| Hm.  I take it these proposals don't handle the multi-sorted case?  
| (The syntax suggests to me that these proposals aren't expressive enough
| to talk about a number of interesting concepts.)

It is alsways risky to generalize from *one* example.

The concept proposal does explicitly discuss parameterized concepts.
I would encourage you to read them before drwaing conclusions. 

-- Gaby