One more suggestion which you can follow or not: Show the code for at least one complete implementation of property map, no matter how practically non-useful or simple it may be, based on your concepts in a clear manner. Then someone trying to understand your concept will understand what practical use your idea may have for their own implementations.
Thanks ! "Jeremy Siek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:2147483647.1037292139@;[10.56.73.193]... > Hi Edward, > > What you say below is an excellent suggestion, and I'll add that > to the introduction in the docs for property map. > > Best Regards, > Jeremy > > --On Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:23 PM -0500 Edward Diener > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I would still say to anyone willing to listen that the doc should spell > > this out, ie. "all these concepts are for you the implementor to put > > together to create the generic functions that work using the categories > > mentioned. There is no implementation here." If I had read that I might > > still have been interested in the concepts as pure ideas, but I would > > have probably moved on pretty quickly, or further looked into the BGL to > > see what was a practical implementation of this concept, but I would not > > have posted anything here regarding the doc which I clearly didn't > > understand and couldn't make heads or tails out of. It was my frustration > > about reading the pieces of what I though was an implementation, and not > > having any idea how these pieces were supposed to fit together to form > > some sort of reality, that led to my frustration and initial post. > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
