From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-07 10:14:16
Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
Andy said paragraph 5. I don't see any way to count paragraphs that
that particular section is #5. Furthermore, that's hardly
"specifically telling Andy not to" use new-style concept syntax for
documentation. I am clearly discouraging the idea, however, because
most readers don't know the new syntax, and because Andy didn't seem
to have a strong grounding in concepts yet.
> 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
?? That is not referring to the proposed new-style concept syntax at
all, "specifically" or otherwise.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk