From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-03 14:43:22
David A. wrote:
> > This extra-typical "adornments" are part of what I would call a
> > Feature Model. So, those stated relations constitute part of the
> > Concept's definition. This is what Andy mentioned as well,
> and I think
> > a few of us see here, the traits being used to define the Concept.
>
> Yes, associated types are an essential element of Concepts,
> and the associated types and a method to reach them (often
> traits) is part of the Concept definition. C++ types,
> however, are not Concepts, and trait specializations are not
> part of the definitions of those C++ types.
Totally correct. I will try to avoid using the word "definition" without
being perfectly clear that I am talking about GP concepts, since Boost
should definitely take the "C++" or "C++ type" to be implicit. You are
right.
/David