Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:
As a library writer in an industrial setting I am faced with a challenge of how to overcome the complexity created by an explosion of C++ geometry types in numerous legacy applications. Integrating a superior library capability into pre-existing applications is a challenge due to type incapability. The important thing about my library is that I have solved that problem by applying C++ Concepts, inheriting my types from the template parameter, to allow a minimal concept map to provide the interface between my algorithms and the legacy system's geometry data types.
That's very good. I'm not quite sure about inheritance though.
P.S. my point2d data structure is a class encapsulated array of size 2. You can override it with your own, of course, through the template inheritance generic interface.
With the restriction that it has to be indexable by a runtime int? That is a severely limited concept of a point, I would say. And, again, I find the need for inheritance dubious. Inheritance gives you tight coupling. Something that you'd want to avoid when adopting a 3rd party type. It is possible to adopt a 2d-point from library A and library B without ever touching them. That's the very essence of generic programming. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net