David Abrahams wrote:
I recall a conversation on this list where someone (named Sebastian?) successfully, and impressively, described a semantic relationship required between the load/save operations of a read/write archive pair.
After many years, that little episode sticks in my mind. I think it was Joaquin though. Actually it was the very episode that convinced me that the quest for some sort of semantic formality was destined to be a dead end which ultimate relied on some sort of shared intuitive understanding of what a sentence means. So I concluded one would just as well avoid the attempt with no real loss.
That's unrelated to the rest of the conversation, because as I have stated many times, validation of template parameters by computer can never check semantic constraints. It's equivalent to solving the halting problem.
I think that's what I'm trying to say.
I was referring to the usage of the word "concept" in this context. I found this to be very misleading and not at all descriptive of the the function of "checking template parameters at compile time"
Because that's not what a concept is. That's just one of the most important things you can do with a concept. Concepts are about mathematical abstraction.
maybe that's why I had trouble. I think when I first saw it as I skimmed through the boost documentation, , I wasn't looking for something one would describe as "checking template parameters". That's what I meant when I said "the nomenclature doesn't help" Robert Ramey