Re: [boost] [Concepts] Definition. Was [GSoC] [Boost.Hana] Formal review request

Subject: Re: [boost] [Concepts] Definition. Was [GSoC] [Boost.Hana] Formal review request
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-08-15 15:42:01

Niall Douglas wrote
> That said, I have never used your Serialisation library. Maybe if I 
> do one day I may realise that concepts or type constraints have 
> nothing to do with good or bad documentation, and my negative 
> association is merely an artefact of random chance. 

I think a better examples of the way boost libraries should be built upon
explicit type constraints can be found in other libraries such as fusion,
iterators, range, graph and others.  These were built with understanding
of type constraints at the start, rather than discovered after the fact
as in my case.

References to the serialization library in this context are really just to
motivate readers to avoid my pain by benefiting from my first hand
experience and to demonstrate that with enough persistence, even
a re-invented wheel can made to roll.

You might try putting these propositions to the test by seeing
what happens when one tries to explicitly specify type requirements
to AFIO - assuming this has yet to be done.  It would be interesting
to know if this weren't possible.

Robert Ramey

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Concepts-Definition-Was-GSoC-Boost-Hana-Formal-review-request-tp4666011p4666408.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.