Re: [boost] [Developing for Boost saves time]( was Re: Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue mem)

Subject: Re: [boost] [Developing for Boost saves time]( was Re: Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue mem)
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-04 23:06:25

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Eric Niebler <eniebler_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Despite what you think, concepts are real and they're coming. If you
> dislike the Concepts Lite approach, you're not alone, but that's what
> we're getting.
>

Late on the reply here, but I just noticed the thread. You know my stance
(I am very much against concepts lite). You've stated this many times, but
I will reiterate that I would definitely not assume that Concepts Lite is
what we're getting. It's yet to be a part of the language and I personally
have seen more as opposed to fewer people opposing it as time goes on.
There is a mantra of "this is definitely what we're getting in the standard
whether you like it or not" that's been spouted by many people involved
with or making use of concept-lite, but it's a horribly premature
assessment. Just for some perspective: C++0x concepts made it way further
along in standardization than where we are with Concepts-Lite right now.
The entire taxonomy of standard concepts for C++0x was done and the entire
standard library was updated for it in N2914. It STILL got cut.
Concepts-lite might not even make it that far due to growing skepticism. It
doesn't even come close to fully improving template error messages in the
way the C++0x concepts could and its current design entirely precludes us
from ever getting there, short of deprecating concepts lite at some point
in the future. It's a flawed design and it would be a mistake for it to be
in the standard.