From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-01 06:33:13
Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:
> For me, requiring a point concept that a has an x() and y() member
> functions is unnecessary and restricts the usefulness of the library. I
> could obviously make such a requirement, but I would prefer to have
> adaptor functions such as:
> coordinate_type point_interface<T>::getX(const T& point);
> which allows compatibility with anyone's point concept
> Shouldn't generic code ideally work with any type that is
> conceptually a point, rather than only types that model the point
> concept they set forth?
You should be able to express this something like "Type T models the
Point Concept if there exists a specialisation point_interface<T>
having members ....". Can you write a definition like that?
I think it would be an interesting thought-experiment to consider how
the standard library would look if re-written in this style, e.g. not
using std::pair in maps.
There are three groups of people affected:
- Users with legacy code, who benefit.
- Users without legacy code, who have a (perhaps small) extra step on
their learning curve.
- People writing libraries, who have more work to do.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk