Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure (docs, Concept Maps misnamed?)

Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure (docs, Concept Maps misnamed?)
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-21 12:45:01

Steven Watanabe wrote:
> AMDG
>
> On 06/21/2012 07:16 AM, Larry Evans wrote:
>> On 05/22/12 15:34, Steven Watanabe wrote:
>>> AMDG
>>>
>>> I'd like to request a formal review of the
>>> TypeErasure library that I've posted about
>>> several times before here.
>> [snip]
>>> Online documentation can be found here:
>>> http://steven_watanabe.users.sourceforge.net/type_erasure/libs/type_erasure/
>>
>> The page:
>>
>>   */libs/type_erasure/doc/html/boost_typeerasure
>>   /concept.html#boost_typeerasure.concept.concept_map
>>
>> with section title, "Concept Maps", seems to be about
>> specializing a builtin concept.  I don't see anything
>> in that section about a map.
>
> a) This applies to any concept, not just
>   builtin ones.
> b) "Concept Map" is the concept term for
>   specialization.

FWIW - Personally I've always found the word "concept" used in this context 
as
extremely unexpressive and misleading.  I believe that this naming has 
prevented
this extremely useful idea from spreading as far within  the C++ community
as it deserves to be.

Maybe we should start referring to this idea as "Type Requirements".  I 
never
figured out what "concept map" is supposed to mean.  Maybe you've cleared
that up for me.  Maybe it should be referred to "Type Requirement 
Inheritance"

Robert Ramey

>
>
> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost