From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-04 18:38:53
Thanks for your review.
There is one special issue, you mentioned.
| > As the External Concepts idea is a rather new one, I would like to
| > ask you
| > to comment on this.
| It strikes me as a new name for an idiom that's been known for some time but
| which never had a good name. I'm not convinced that External Concept is a
| good name, but it's a start.
I'll all open to suggestions. I guess the options are these:
1. Don't define External Concepts at all; treat this library as a special case that don't happen that often
2. Define External Concepts, but find a better name
- Freestanding Concept ?
- Canonical Concept ?
| I'd like to see a more formal treatment of the
| definition of External Concept than is provided by the documentation
| included with this library.
| The documentation that's provided I found
| sufficient, it's just of a different style than other concept documentation.
ok. I don't think the definition of concepts are that much more elaborate. What could be
much better is the example which could follow normal concept standards. Is that what you had in mind?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk