Barend Gehrels wrote:
About the "point concept". I've looked at the concepts, downloaded and tried the concept compiler.
Hi Barend, Other people have expressed a desire that you describe your library in terms of concepts I agree with that, see e.g. John Femiani's messages. Based on the comment quoted above I wonder if perhaps you have misunderstood what is being asked for. I don't think anyone is asking for code that will run on ConceptGCC. I would be quite happy for you to simply write your _documentation_ in terms of concepts. If we take your point class as an archetype of your point concept, I think that this means that algorithm implementations have to use the operator[] notation while "user" code can choose to use .x()/.y() notation. For what it's worth, as a potential algorithm author I'm not at all enthusiastic about that: but I know that [] is other peoples' preferred style. No doubt once we look at the concepts for everything else there will be myriad other similar choices. I fear what it comes down to is this: if you present a minimalistic library, people will focus on and disagree about these details; neither side of the ".x vs [0]" argument is "right", and I don't think there's a solution that keeps both happy. Only by presenting a library that has compelling merit of its own (for example within its algorithms) will you get people to set aside their stylistic preferences and follow your concepts. Regards, Phil.