From: John Femiani (JOHN.FEMIANI_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-10 02:48:08
>
> John wrote:
> >Oh, maybe my point of view was too narrow then :) In _this_
> context I
> >thought checking was a requirement, otherwise why make a
> class? without
> >checking it is just documentation right?
>
> Um, not in my case. I am sort of stretching the concept
> class to serve additional roles, for instance, making it also
> the scope within which functions related to that concept are
> defined.
<snip>
> John wrote:
> >So what I am interested in is making those assumptions explicit, and
> >providing the tools to check that my _own_ private code is going to
> work
> >with whatever makes it into boost. That is why I say I care
> more about
> >concepts (meaning checkable concepts & archetypes) than I do
> about the
> >algorithms in a boost geometry library.
>
> If your own point type has a default constructor and API
> sufficient to get and set the x and y values in any way you
> like it will work with my library. You would simply
> specialize the point_traits for your type and provide a
> typedef for your coordinate_type and two functions, one to
> get a coordinate and one to set a coordinate.
>
So would it be fair to say you aim to provide a 'concept_map' from some
user type to a point-coordinate 'concept'?
In that case, what I care about is the concept for the mapped type,
since that is what I need to check my code against.
-- John