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: 2012-10-14 13:56:29

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> And maybe we just support the requires clause and we don't have to
> worry about typename or no typename in the template parameter
> signature...

I already support the syntax for associated types and it works fine for
unary type concepts ( see
http://generic.nfshost.com/generic/standard_concepts/container_concepts/container.html
),
so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to eventually apply it to
template/concept parameter lists, I just don't think it should be a
priority at this time. As for disambiguation, we could always just use
"constexpr" to mean "value" as opposed to typename, and we could use
"template" for template templates. "typename" should probably just always
be implied since most users would never use anything other than type
concepts in that manner.

Anyway, all of this is stuff to worry about later.

-- 
-Matt Calabrese