Subject: Re: [boost] Demand for Boost libraries - was Math tools polynomial enhancements
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-11-02 04:33:55
On November 2, 2015 12:30:16 AM EST, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 10/31/2015 12:10 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> > This goes double for the C++ committee. How is it that years of
> > and discussion and development can be invested in "Concepts" while
> > getting Boost authors to include "concepts" in their documentation
> > boost concept checking in their code is like pulling teeth.
> Perhaps because "concepts" are not part of C++ and unless concepts
> become codified Boost authors have nothing to work with in adding
> "concepts" to their library.
Concepts are about documenting the operations required of a parameterizing type combined with semantics. BCCL goes a long way towards checking the former, while names and documentation can manage the latter. Concepts in the language will be nicer, of course.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk