Subject: Re: [boost] [Concepts] Definition. Was [GSoC] [Boost.Hana] Formal review request
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-08-14 02:00:52
Niall Douglas wrote
> So tl;dr; I am really saying the time for concepts - whatever they
> are to whoever's definition - isn't here yet.
I would disagree. The whole STL library is based on "concepts". That
is, all template parameter have explicit requirements. This is true
now and has always been so.
It's true that compiler support for verification of all the type
which someone might come up with falls short of perfection. But
as a practical matter, most type requirements are pretty simple and
easily supported with current type traits. For example, type requirements
quick_sort(iterator<T> begin, iterator<T> end)
are easily stated AND enforced:
This is useful right now. And few library authors even explicitly state
their type requirements - much less include them in code.
This could change in a month - and it will if I have anything to say
about it. There is absolutely no advantage to not doing this.
> Let's get a few concept
> programming libraries based on a Concepts Lite compiler around first.
> Let's not dig ourselves now into a straightjacket we later regret.
I've included a table which maps boost concept library macros
to the concept lite syntax. see
"Future Compatibility". Concepts lite is not really relevant here.
It won't change the landscape in any way. Library authors
aren't failing to explicitly define and enforce their type requirements
because they lack compiler support for this. They're doing it because
we don't demand that we do so.
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Concepts-Definition-Was-GSoC-Boost-Hana-Formal-review-request-tp4666011p4666340.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk