On Oct 6, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Andy Little wrote:
"Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:4526579E.6040003@sympatico.ca...
IMO 'generic' doesn't have to translate to 'domain-agnostic'. Generic here means that the individual models used are orthogonal, so it is easy to combine different representations of these models into working code. There is the 'Image' container, and there are various 'Pixel' types images are composed of. Generic means that both models are presented as concepts (and in fact I'm totally delighted to find the documentation use Concepts to present them !),
I wasnt going to bring it up, but I was specifically told not to use Concept docs.
? At this point, it's still a gamble. There are benefits to using concepts in the documentation, such as their more formal specification and the possibility that one could use them with ConceptGCC. And if they get accepted, you'll be ahead of the curve :) Still, the syntax of concepts might change... GIL's documentation, for instance, uses the old "Indiana" syntax. The syntax for newer concepts proposals is a bit different, so the documentation will have to be changed at least once to reflect newer syntax. And, of course, not many people are familiar with concepts at this time, so even though concepts are relatively easy to read, they aren't as standard as SGI-style concept documentation. So it's a tough call. I wouldn't fault a library either way, myself. Doug