From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-26 17:43:23
Barend Gehrels wrote:
> About the "point concept". I've looked at the concepts, downloaded and
> tried the concept compiler.
Hi Barend,
Other people have expressed a desire that you describe your library in
terms of concepts I agree with that, see e.g. John Femiani's messages.
Based on the comment quoted above I wonder if perhaps you have
misunderstood what is being asked for. I don't think anyone is asking
for code that will run on ConceptGCC. I would be quite happy for you
to simply write your _documentation_ in terms of concepts.
If we take your point class as an archetype of your point concept, I
think that this means that algorithm implementations have to use the
operator[] notation while "user" code can choose to use .x()/.y()
notation. For what it's worth, as a potential algorithm author I'm not
at all enthusiastic about that: but I know that [] is other peoples'
preferred style. No doubt once we look at the concepts for everything
else there will be myriad other similar choices. I fear what it comes
down to is this: if you present a minimalistic library, people will
focus on and disagree about these details; neither side of the ".x vs
[0]" argument is "right", and I don't think there's a solution that
keeps both happy. Only by presenting a library that has compelling
merit of its own (for example within its algorithms) will you get
people to set aside their stylistic preferences and follow your concepts.
Regards, Phil.