On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:43:11 -0600 Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm also a bit more of a > > fan of C++0x concepts than those contraints shown in the slides. I > > haven't really thought how it all would work out, but if the atmosphere > > was more ambitious to this direction, I could participate more. But it > > seems my vision conflicts badly with what D2 has become. > > In all honesty, it is difficult to infer your vision from the trail of > your posts. > > As of C++ concepts, let me mention a few facts fresh from the source (I > literally collected them an hour ago). C++ concepts are dead, buried, > and decomposing. Nobody is working on them and there is exactly one guy > in the world still talking about them. For a variety of theoretical and > practical purposes, they will never make it in C++. > > D's constrained templates were introduced on 17 June 2008 and they've > been a smashing hit. Virtually all of Phobos uses them, and I'm sure a > lot of generic client code. They take half a minute to explain and solve > a difficult problem in a very simple manner. > > I'm not saying you can't convince that C++-style concepts would be > superior. I'm saying you'll need to bring some solid evidence to the > table. If you don't, please don't claim you're being ostracized :o). About "concept" + "programming", you may have a look at XL http://xlr.sourceforge.net/concept/toplevel.html (an extensible PL, or a set of PLs, built to support "concept programming") (more info at http://xlr.sourceforge.net/concept/top.html). This language also has a very clear (semantics) & nice (syntax) template/generics system... with constraints (done right, imo). (Example at http://xlr.sourceforge.net/examples/maximum.html) Denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com
