Re: [boost] Preview 2 of a template Geometry Library

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.

Hi Barend,

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 
[0]" 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.

Regards,  Phil.