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...
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. Concept documentation, as far as I know, has never impacted negatively on the acceptance of a library. In fact, in my experience, it's the other way around. For example, ASIO, accepted earlier this year, uses concept documentation. But some concept documentation goes back to the very beginning of Boost (like operators, vintage 1999). Here's some samples (there are others) http://asio.sourceforge.net/asio-0.2.0/doc/html/ http://www.boost.org/libs/iterator/doc/iterator_concepts.html http://www.boost.org/libs/iterator/doc/iterator_archetypes.html http://www.boost.org/libs/utility/operators.htm My whole point in this is to make it totally clear for potential library authors that Concepts are valid and valuable documentation approach. If people have questions on how best to use concepts, I'm sure there are several people on the list that would be happy to help with *best practices* w.r.t concept documentation. Jeff