[Boost-commit] svn:boost r54760 - sandbox/committee/LWG/proposals

Subject: [Boost-commit] svn:boost r54760 - sandbox/committee/LWG/proposals
From: dgregor_at_[hidden]
Date: 2009-07-07 01:19:21

Author: dgregor
Date: 2009-07-07 01:19:21 EDT (Tue, 07 Jul 2009)
New Revision: 54760
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/54760

Log:
Model -> data type
Text files modified: 
   sandbox/committee/LWG/proposals/taxonomy-of-concepts-and-maps.rst |    19 +++++++++++--------                     
   1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Modified: sandbox/committee/LWG/proposals/taxonomy-of-concepts-and-maps.rst
==============================================================================
--- sandbox/committee/LWG/proposals/taxonomy-of-concepts-and-maps.rst	(original)
+++ sandbox/committee/LWG/proposals/taxonomy-of-concepts-and-maps.rst	2009-07-07 01:19:21 EDT (Tue, 07 Jul 2009)
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@
 
 2. They are often so simple that the syntactic weight of an
    explicitly-written ``concept_map`` is a significant fraction of the
-   weight of the model declaration itself::
+   weight of the user's data type itself::
 
       struct case_insensitive // 67 non-whitespace characters
       {
@@ -151,11 +151,12 @@
       concept_map BinaryPredicate<case_insensitive> {}
 
    [This relative weight is mitigated somewhat by the need to actually
-   *implement* the model, and, if accepted, by the intentional mapping
+   *implement* the data type, and, if accepted, by the intentional mapping
    syntax proposed in N2916]
 
 3. Because foundational concepts have a widely agreed-upon syntax and
-   semantics, there's a very good chance that there are already models
+   semantics, there's a very good chance that there are already matching
+   user data types
    “out there in the wild,” likely designed with the abstract concept,
    in mind, but without specific knowledge of the C++ ``concept``.
 
@@ -267,10 +268,12 @@
 compelling in the case of nontrivial concepts as they are for
 foundational ones.  Nontrivial concepts are not easy to model
 correctly, so the diagnostics produced by a ``concept_map`` can be
-highly valuable to the author of the model.  Declaring a new model is a
+highly valuable to the author of the data type.  Declaring a new matching
+data type is a
 significant job that tends to make the effort required to write a
 ``concept_map`` “disappear in the noise.” Finally, because they are
-not simple, there is little chance of finding pre-existing models of
+not simple, there is little chance of finding pre-existing data types that
+meet the requirements of
 newly-defined nontrivial concepts “in the wild.”
 
 The risks of declaring a nontrivial concept ``auto`` are also less
@@ -296,9 +299,9 @@
 ``auto`` concept, an intentional map may be automatically generated
 when the type is passed where ``EqualityComparable`` is required.  In
 the case of the non-``auto`` concept ``BidirectionalIterator``, an
-intentional map must be written by the author of the model.  We call
+intentional map must be written by the author of the data type.  We call
 both maps “intentional” because they are intended by the author of the
-model.
+data type.
 
 Intentional ``concept_maps``\ s are traditionally empty, since a
 programmer modeling a concept in C++03 must write the required
@@ -348,7 +351,7 @@
   together, within the concept map.
 
 * It makes explicit and visible the relationship between the
-  properties of the model's template arguments and of the model itself
+  properties of the data type's template arguments and of the data type itself
   (even if the concept is ``auto``).  For example, a ``pair<T,U>`` is
   ``CopyConstructible`` if both ``T`` and ``U`` are
   ``CopyConstructible``.