"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> wrote in message news:4527E320.7050904@crystalclearsoftware.com...
Andy Little wrote:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:873ba0w7ck.fsf@pereiro.luannocracy.com...
Now I shall sit back and watch the goalposts move as if by magic ... Thought experiment #1: is there possible outcome here -- other than me conceding that I "specifically told you" something I never said or meant to say -- that would convince you the goalposts aren't being moved?
Thought experiment #2: what does someone who makes such a remark hope to accomplish by it, and what does it _actually_ accomplish?
I don't think there is anything I want to say in response.
I tell you what it accomplishes for me -- it makes me want to put the person that writes this sort of hyperbole into the /dev/null filter. Unfortunately since I'm a list moderator I can't actually do that...
You may want to read this so that you can hone your skills: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war Alternatively an apology for the above remarks would be welcome.
I hope the bullet points will be useful to those considering writing Concept documentation.
In case you missed it, there is a fair amount of Concept documentation used by several Boost libraries.
You might like to read some of the other posts in this thread. It might clarify for you the subject under discussion, and as a general rule IMHO, it is wise to do that before jumping in with inflammatory comments such as the above. http://www.generic-programming.org/languages/conceptcpp/ Of course this is all now apparently part of the C++ language, and there is only one conforming compiler. And I quote: "once we have concept support in the language we will be using pseudosignatures rather than valid expressions to express syntactic constraints, so we can expect that to change. In the meantime, though, the things that can be expressed using established conventions should be so expressed" regards Andy Little