From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-23 01:08:29
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
| Brian McNamara <lorgon_at_[hidden]> writes:
|
| > I feel like most C++ programmers have become so accustomed to the
| > "happy accident of structural conformance" that they think it is the
| > common case. It's not. Aside from functionality named by (1)
| > operators or (2) a handful of common names that have fallen into
| > common usage (like "swap" and "clone"), the chances that
| > some-random-library-
| > is-going-to-just-happen-to-present-an-interface-which-exactly-
| > structurally-conforms-to-the-concepts-you-developed-independently
| > are nearly zero.
|
| Most C++ programmers do seem to miss this.
I don't think that is a fair characterization.
-- Gaby