"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
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.
You might like to read some of the other posts in this thread. It might clarify for you the subject under discussion, and as a general rule IMHO, it is wise to do that before jumping in with inflammatory comments such as the above.
Andy, While I agree that Jeff *might* have been able to understand what you meant by reading the foregoing thread very very carefully, you ought to take at least some responsibility for his misunderstanding. When you write "use Concept docs" it's natural that anyone would assume you mean just that: documenting the concepts used in a library, just as many other Boost libraries have done for years. It takes a fair amount of reading-between-the-lines (or a good hard look at the GIL documentation in the context of your posts) to realize that you really meant "documenting concepts using a proposed new-style concept syntax." I didn't get it at first, either, which partly explains my shock that you were claiming you were specifically told not to do it.
http://www.generic-programming.org/languages/conceptcpp/
Of course this is all now apparently part of the C++ language, and there is only one conforming compiler. And I quote:
"once we have concept support in the language we will be using pseudosignatures rather than valid expressions to express syntactic constraints, so we can expect that to change. In the meantime, though, the things that can be expressed using established conventions should be so expressed"
I know you have enough sense to know that what is "part of the C++ language" comes from the standard, and no standard document contains a specification for language support of concepts. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt until now, but it seems clear to me that you're not actually misunderstanding the intent of my words: this is a wilful misrepresentation of what was merely a confident prediction on my part. I didn't feel it necessary, in this forum, to spell all that out. If you are determined to continue sarcastic distortions of other peoples' statements, the moderators will have no choice but to regulate your postings. It is poisonous to Boost discourse. You're already way, way over the line in my opinion, and I know several other moderators thought so even before I did. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com