=3D?windows-1252?Q?=3D93Are_ concepts_required_of_Joe_Coder=3D3F=3D94=3D2DThread?=3D
Helmut Zeisel
=93Are concepts required of Joe Coder?=94 thread.
Where can I find more information about this thread? (Google had just
one hit for "Are concepts required of Joe Coder?=94, and this was
Stroustrup's paper)
Helmut
--
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use
mailto:std...@netlab.cs.rpi.edu<std-c%2B%2...@netlab.cs.rpi.edu>
]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]
Anthony Williams
> In "Simplifying the use of concepts", Bjarne Stroustrup mentions the
> =93Are concepts required of Joe Coder?=94 thread.
> Where can I find more information about this thread? (Google had just
> one hit for "Are concepts required of Joe Coder?=94, and this was
> Stroustrup's paper)
This was a thread on the committee reflectors, and is not publicly
available.
Anthony
--
Author of C++ Concurrency in Action | http://www.manning.com/williams
just::thread C++0x thread library | http://www.stdthread.co.uk
Just Software Solutions Ltd | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL, UK. Company No. 5478976
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std...@netlab.cs.rpi.edu]
Helmut Zeisel
> Helmut Zeisel <zei200...@liwest.at> writes:
> > In "Simplifying the use of concepts", Bjarne Stroustrup mentions the
> > =93Are concepts required of Joe Coder?=94 thread.
> > Where can I find more information about this thread? (Google had just
> > one hit for "Are concepts required of Joe Coder?=94, and this was
> > Stroustrup's paper)
>
> This was a thread on the committee reflectors, and is not publicly
> available.
I see. Is it possible to publish some parts of the discussion (maybe
in this newsgroup)?
In particular, I would be intereseted in Howard Hinnant's original
"design (of a utility) that could be done in two ways" to get better
understanding of the current problems with concepts.
Helmut
--
Howard Hinnant
> > This was a thread on the committee reflectors, and is not publicly
> > available.
>
> I see. Is it possible to publish some parts of the discussion (maybe
> in this newsgroup)?
> In particular, I would be intereseted in Howard Hinnant's original
> "design (of a utility) that could be done in two ways" to get better
> understanding of the current problems with concepts.
I am not at liberty to publish this discussion (which was quite
lengthy). But I do feel I can publish my own words which
(unintentionally) kicked off the discussion. I did not have a
"design". I had a question about how we should move an existing
design into the world of concepts:
> There exists some motivation to formulate the Clock concept (ref Table
> in [time.clock.req]) in such a way that if the client wanted to create a
> clock, he would need to use concepts, probably a concept_map
> std::Clock<MyClock>. But this raises a question: What if the client of
> MyClock has some (possibly unforeseen) motivation to not want to use
> concepts? Can he now not create a clock which can interoperate with
> conceptified code such as:
>
> template <Clock C, Duration D>
> void sleep_until(const chrono::time_point<C, D>& abs_time);
>
> ?
>
> std::sleep_until was designed to work with user-written clocks, and I
> would hate to see that functionality unintentionally curtailed.
I do not believe the publication of this question will give anyone
further insights. The discussion quickly veered away from this
specific question. But I publish it anyway in the spirit of
openness.
-Howard