-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost- bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of David Abrahams Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 5:25 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [guidelines] why template errors suck
At Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:55:58 -0700, Smith, Jacob N wrote:
concept MyGrammarE1pE0<typename Node> { requires SpiritBinaryNode<Node>; requires MyGrammarE1<get_child<_0,
SpiritNode<Node>::children>::type>,
MyGrammarE0<get_child<_1,
SpiritNode<Node>::children>::type>;
}
template <MyGrammarE0 Node> concept_map MyGrammarS<Node> { }
template <MyGrammarE1 Node> concept_map MyGrammarE0<Node> { }
// The following modeling relationship uses a made up syntax. I'm not sure // anyone implemented a modeling relationship syntax from multisorted concepts // without an underlying carrier. template <MyGrammarS L, MyGrammarS R> concept_map MyGrammarE0<MyGrammarE1pE0<L,R>> { }
Isn't MyGrammarE1pE0 a single-type ("single-sorted" if you're nasty) concept?
Just a mistake. I suppose template <MyGramarE1pE0 Node> concept_mp MyGrammarE0<Node> { } is what I was trying to say.
I don't know what you mean by "carrier" above. Could you explain what you're trying to accomplish with this made-up syntax? Maybe I can help.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost