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

Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure (docs, Concept Maps misnamed?)
From: lcaminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-21 19:49:24

Steven Watanabe-4 wrote
> 
> AMDG
> 
> On 06/21/2012 10:34 AM, Larry Evans wrote:
>> 
>> The page:
>>   */libs/type_erasure/doc/html/boost_typeerasure/conceptdef.html
>> uses the term 'primitive concept':
>> 
>>   A primitive concept must be a specialization of a class template,
>>   with a static member function called apply.
>> 
>> What's the difference between a 'Concept Map' and 'primitive concept'?
>> If they are the same, why not use the same term for both?
>> [snip]
>> 
> 
> They aren't the same.  A primitive
> concept specified the interface and
> (optionally) a default Concept Map.
> A Concept Map specifies how a specific
> type models the concept.
> 

I read the docs and didn't find the concept naming confusing (on the
contrary, it's "standard" terminology). However, I agree that a Wiki link to
concepts would be useful from in the docs as not all readers will be
familiar with the C++0x concept proposals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concepts_(C%2B%2B)

--Lorenzo

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Formal-Review-Request-TypeErasure-tp4630373p4631657.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.