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 21:45:14

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Matt Calabrese <rivorus_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Caveat: I do doubt that you can do the forced conversions in a library
>> without loss of efficiency, but it's worth a try anyhow.
>
>
> Yeah, there's likely going to be a lot of caveats concerning
> library-emulated constrained templates since it generally would imply
> wrapping the types and probably explicitly qualifying calls to associated
> functions. It may end up not really being feasible, but we'll figure that
> out when we get there. At the very least, we can get automatic archetype
> generation and some checking, which is still useful. Properly constrained
> templates may end up being like my approach to library-emulated concept
> overloads (that is, technically feasible, but ultimately cumbersome and
> possibly not worth it).

Well, it just means that even if we are able to impl the lib, there
are still reasons to put concepts into the language (and the same goes
for contracts!). Hopefully having the lib will boost ;) people to use
concepts in their code so it'd be easier to push for their
standardization.

--Lorenzo