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 13:59:07

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Matt Calabrese <rivorus_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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
>  ),
>

Woops, I just noticed I'm missing "empty" and "size," not sure how I
managed that.

-- 
-Matt Calabrese