From: Sebastian Redl (sebastian.redl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-07 04:39:57
David Abrahams wrote:
>? I don't see anything there that amounts to "specifically telling you
>not to use Concept docs."
For reference, here is the paragraph Andy most likely refers to:
>> The problem is that is remote from the per item description:
>> IMO It would make more sense to say e.g.
>> binary_operation<AbstractQuantity Lhs,Op,AbstractQuantity Rhs>
>Maybe it would (in fact something like that will be available with the
>language support for concepts), but as I said this is not the time to
>invent new notations. Get comfortable with the existing conventions
>If you wanted to look at ConceptGCC and actually write conforming
>new-style concepts, I'd find it hard to fault you... but I don't think
>that would be as useful to your readers, and for you I think that
>might be overreaching at this stage.
And at the very end:
>You don't need to invent a more abstract syntax to describe that True
>concept. The standard requirements table and other notations will do
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk