From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-26 17:43:23
Barend Gehrels wrote:
> About the "point concept". I've looked at the concepts, downloaded and
> tried the concept compiler.
Other people have expressed a desire that you describe your library in
terms of concepts I agree with that, see e.g. John Femiani's messages.
Based on the comment quoted above I wonder if perhaps you have
misunderstood what is being asked for. I don't think anyone is asking
for code that will run on ConceptGCC. I would be quite happy for you
to simply write your _documentation_ in terms of concepts.
If we take your point class as an archetype of your point concept, I
think that this means that algorithm implementations have to use the
operator notation while "user" code can choose to use .x()/.y()
notation. For what it's worth, as a potential algorithm author I'm not
at all enthusiastic about that: but I know that  is other peoples'
preferred style. No doubt once we look at the concepts for everything
else there will be myriad other similar choices. I fear what it comes
down to is this: if you present a minimalistic library, people will
focus on and disagree about these details; neither side of the ".x vs
" argument is "right", and I don't think there's a solution that
keeps both happy. Only by presenting a library that has compelling
merit of its own (for example within its algorithms) will you get
people to set aside their stylistic preferences and follow your concepts.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk