Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl@getdesigned.at> writes:
For reference, here is the paragraph Andy most likely refers to:
The problem is that is remote from the per item description:
binary_operation<Lhs,Op,Rhs>
IMO It would make more sense to say e.g.
binary_operation<AbstractQuantity Lhs,Op,AbstractQuantity Rhs>
Maybe it would (in fact something like that will be available with the language support for concepts), but as I said this is not the time to invent new notations. Get comfortable with the existing conventions first.
If you wanted to look at ConceptGCC and actually write conforming new-style concepts, I'd find it hard to fault you... but I don't think that would be as useful to your readers, and for you I think that might be overreaching at this stage.
Andy said paragraph 5. I don't see any way to count paragraphs that that particular section is #5. Furthermore, that's hardly "specifically telling Andy not to" use new-style concept syntax for documentation. I am clearly discouraging the idea, however, because most readers don't know the new syntax, and because Andy didn't seem to have a strong grounding in concepts yet.
And at the very end:
You don't need to invent a more abstract syntax to describe that True concept. The standard requirements table and other notations will do just fine:
?? That is not referring to the proposed new-style concept syntax at all, "specifically" or otherwise. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com