Re: [boost] Provisional Boost.Generic and Boost.Auto_Function (concepts without concepts)

Subject: Re: [boost] Provisional Boost.Generic and Boost.Auto_Function (concepts without concepts)
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-14 07:16:48

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Matt Calabrese <rivorus_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Here's a quick couple of screen shots of things in action -- first, a
> declaration for a user-defined "random access iterator" and an assert that
> tells why it is not actually a random access iterator (see the commented out
> lines and the error in the build log -- the first error points directly to
> the line where the assert appears):
>
> http://img.waffleimages.com/146abf6162ad7becd898ce3e06aae7502963de2d/boost_generic_assert.PNG
>
> And here is the actual concept definition. Note that while the first error
> that appears in the build log points to the assert itself, the lines that
> tell you what went wrong point you to the concept definition:
>
> http://img.waffleimages.com/75dc253518146071c4a10b63c155d6c893b7ff68/boost_generic_rai_concept.PNG
>
> To see just how closely the above concept resembles the specification of the
> concept in the standard, check out page 820 in the current working draft.
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3126.pdf
>

I love it. Thanks for working on this Matt!

[snip]
>
> Anyway, I've said more than I wanted to right now. I didn't expect this
> thread to be bumped -- I was hoping to post a new thread about all of this
> once everything was polished and up in the sandbox.

Looking forward to that. Have a good one!

-- 
Dean Michael Berris
deanberris.com