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

Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] concepts: pseudo-signatures vs. usage patterns
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-13 17:52:28

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > Of course this is achievable only in concepts as language feature. Any
>> > use-pattern-based concept library will not be able to implement this
>> > behavior, as far as I am aware.
>>
>> On the other hand, a pseudo-signature-based library conceivably could.
>>
>
> And since this discussion started because Lorenzo wonders which of the two
> approaches to take for his library, perhaps this limitation gives us the
> answer.

... which is sounding more and more like Lorenzo should leave N3351
alone, help Matt at least implementing a front-end macros like the
ones below (s/CONTRACT_CONCEPT/BOOST_GENERIC_CONCEPT or similar), and
use concepts defined using Boost.Generic in Boost.Contract requires
clause.

http://contractpp.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/contractpp/trunk/doc/html/contract__/concepts.html#contract__.concepts.concept_definitions__not_implemented_

--Lorenzo