Re: [boost] [contract] concepts: pseudo-signatures vs. usage patterns

Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] concepts: pseudo-signatures vs. usage patterns
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-12 00:55:57

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> Right now I see two ways forward:
>
> 1. I implement N3351 in Boost.Contract and Matt implements N2914 in
> Boost.Generic.
> 2. Or, I help Matt implementing N2914 in Boost.Generic (and
> Boost.Contract's requires clause will use concepts defined using
> Boost.Generic).
>

I'm all for either of these ideas. Also, I've finally started documenting
the concepts in Boost.Generic (they are all of the concepts of N2914, not
all working though). It's in the sandbox and uploaded at
http://generic.nfshost.com/ , but don't try to build the docs from the
sandbox because they rely on some code changes that I have yet to commit.
Fixing explicit concept maps that deal with refinement is proving to be a
little tricky. I'll prioritize making a simple tutorial so that people have
some idea as to how to work with the concepts without looking at the
boostcon slides or the library's tests. At the very least, if you click
through the concepts that I have documented (all of concepts,
support_concepts, and container_concepts), you can see the syntax... albeit
littered with little comments, workarounds, and TODOs since the code just
references the source.

Then we all use the lib(s) to experiment with concepts before
> (re)proposing concepts (and hopefully contracts) for standardization
> in C++1x.
>

It would be very interesting to do something like implement BGL concepts
and constrained algorithms with both N2914 and N3351 approaches through
Boost.Generic and Boost.Contract, then encourage people to experiment with
the results.

-- 
-Matt Calabrese