Re: [boost] [GTL] redesign checked into sandbox

From: John Femiani (JOHN.FEMIANI_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-10 02:48:08

> 
> John wrote:
> >Oh, maybe my point of view was too narrow then :)  In _this_ 
> context I 
> >thought checking was a requirement, otherwise why make a 
> class? without 
> >checking it is just documentation right?
> 
> Um, not in my case.  I am sort of stretching the concept 
> class to serve additional roles, for instance, making it also 
> the scope within which functions related to that concept are 
> defined. 
<snip> 
> John wrote:
> >So what I am interested in is making those assumptions explicit, and 
> >providing the tools to check that my _own_ private code is going to
> work
> >with whatever makes it into boost. That is why I say I care 
> more about 
> >concepts (meaning checkable concepts & archetypes) than I do 
> about the 
> >algorithms in a boost geometry library.
> 
> If your own point type has a default constructor and API 
> sufficient to get and set the x and y values in any way you 
> like it will work with my library.  You would simply 
> specialize the point_traits for your type and provide a 
> typedef for your coordinate_type and two functions, one to 
> get a coordinate and one to set a coordinate.  
> 

So would it be fair to say you aim to provide a 'concept_map' from some
user type to a point-coordinate 'concept'? 

In that case, what I care about is the concept for the mapped type,
since that is what I need to check my code against.

-- John