From: Bruno Lalande (bruno.lalande_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-14 04:50:01
> So, we can envision two different tacks to take with this point concept.
> One is to make one point concept for all types of points (2D, 3D,
> homogeneous points, 11D simplified string theory points, etc.) or we can
> have a separate concept for each conceptual type of point and separate
> traits classes for each. We can have inheritance between concepts, 3D
> point could inherit from 2D point concept, for instance.
I'd be inclined to prefer the first solution, because I just don't see
any advantage in the second one. Do you have some strong arguments in
favor of the second approach?
> Having free
> functions and meta functions instead of traits might lead us in the
> direction of good design, but I don't think it is a prerequisite. Good
> OO design is probably achievable.
Yep I agree, I think we must consider metafunctions and free function
not as a goal or proof of good design but as a more powerful tool that
we can use if things go too complicated. Anyway, I'll give it a try to
compare the resulting code, on library side and (most important) on
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk