"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
"David Abrahams" wrote
"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
Your criticism mainly concerned the C++ Concepts section of the documentation for PQS. What might help is some examples of what you consider good C++ Concept documentation.
The C++ standard does a pretty decent job. There's also the SGI STL website. There's also the Boost Graph library. The "new iterator concepts" document in the iterator library docs does pretty well. And you can always start at http://www.boost.org/more/generic_programming.html#concept.
I have had a look at these sources and I will look at them in more detail, however they seem to represent only Concepts with runtime requirements.
I don't think so. X a(b); that the syntax is valid is a compile-time requirement. Any associated semantics are runtime requirements. std::iterator_traits<T>::value_type 100% compile-time requirement.
Many of the concepts used in PQS library have only compile time requirements. The only example of documentation for this type of Concept that I know of is MPL.( I assume you see MPL as a good example of compile time only concept documentation).
Yes, **in the context of the MPL**. There is a background assumption that nested members of templates are types and not values, which you can't reasonably make in the PQS context.
PQS uses both forms of Concept. Is there any means or language convention to distinguish the two forms?
There are not really two different forms AFAICT.
My current intention is to put the compile-time requirement Concepts under a separate section from the runtime requirement Concepts.
Almost every concept you write that has runtime requirements also has compile-time requirements, so I don't know if this division makes much sense. But I'm much more concerned with the contents of the concept descriptions than the order in which they're presented. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com