From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-06 10:52:06
On Oct 6, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Andy Little wrote:
> "Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> IMO 'generic' doesn't have to translate to 'domain-agnostic'.
>> Generic here
>> means that the individual models used are orthogonal, so it is
>> easy to
>> combine different representations of these models into working code.
>> There is the 'Image' container, and there are various 'Pixel'
>> types images
>> are composed of. Generic means that both models are presented as
>> (and in fact I'm totally delighted to find the documentation use
>> to present them !),
> I wasnt going to bring it up, but I was specifically told not to
> use Concept
At this point, it's still a gamble. There are benefits to using
concepts in the documentation, such as their more formal
specification and the possibility that one could use them with
ConceptGCC. And if they get accepted, you'll be ahead of the curve :)
Still, the syntax of concepts might change... GIL's documentation,
for instance, uses the old "Indiana" syntax. The syntax for newer
concepts proposals is a bit different, so the documentation will have
to be changed at least once to reflect newer syntax. And, of course,
not many people are familiar with concepts at this time, so even
though concepts are relatively easy to read, they aren't as standard
as SGI-style concept documentation.
So it's a tough call. I wouldn't fault a library either way, myself.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk