|
|
Glas :Re: [glas] proposals |
From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-07 09:32:41
Karl Meerbergen wrote:
> This system is very close to the concept c++ concept system and
> therefore I like it very much, but the disadvantage is that built-in
> types do not have this mechanism: e.g.
>
> class double
> : public scalar_expression<double>
> , public scalar_collection<double>
> {
> ...
> } ;
>
> So, we should define glas::double, glas::complex, glas::int etc.
Or an alternative would be to use meta-programming tricks to recognize
the built-in types.
> If we choose A, we should use this also with Concept
> C++, otherwise we have two completely different systems, which is overkill.
I'm all for portability. However if using concepts makes life _much_
easier and since we can expect concepts to end up in the standard,
relying on concepts is only a drawback in the short term.
toon