Subject: [ggl] Concept names and template parameters
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz)
Date: 2009-06-13 17:43:47
Bruno Lalande wrote:
>> This is of course not compilable. So a logical thing to do would be placing
>> all concepts in a namespace "concept". It would then be:
>> BOOST_CONCEPT_ASSERT( (concept::Point<Point>) );
>> which is acceptible, and actually looks OK. So this is my proposal. Placing
>> all concepts in namespace "concept".
> Yep, sounds perfect to me. It's even slightly better since it states
> more clearly that we are checking our point against a concept class.
I agree with Bruno. I like it.
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net