Boost logo

Boost :

From: Arash Partow (arash_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-28 09:17:31

Michael Fawcett wrote:
> I agree, what do you think of this extremely simple starting point?
> The names definitely need work.
> template <typename T>
> struct CompileTimePointConcept {
> };
> template <typename T, int N>
> struct CompileTimePointConcept<T[N]> {
> };
> template <typename T>
> struct RuntimeIndexablePointConcept {
> };
> template <typename T, int N>
> struct RuntimeIndexablePointConcept<T[N]> {
> };

Will there be operators for these types? or will they be externally

That CompileTimePointConcept<T[N]> seems quite interesting but how
much use can it really be?

> What else would a PointConcept need? "Point" almost feels like a
> misnomer since it implies much more than most algorithms require...

The problem is every algorithm has its own set of requirements for
what a point must be able to do/provide. Taking the approach mentioned
in the DG video from a previous thread (continually simplfying templated
inputs into routines) leads me to believe the most general point concept
would be any empty class.

Arash Partow
Be one who knows what they don't know,
Instead of being one who knows not what they don't know,
Thinking they know everything about all things.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at