Re: [boost] Interest in a "concepts lite" library?

On Apr 21, 2016, at 2:03 AM, Juan Pedro Bolivar Puente wrote:

...

...

I think such an effort is long overdue. The world needs a modern replacement for BCC. As mentioned in other posts, tick would also be a candidate. There might be others. I would like to see them considered/reviewed as a group in order to select the best candidate for boost.

As this is all a volunteer effort, I think I would rather see better collaboration instead of competing.

Agreed. I have been reviewing your library and , bike-sheds about conventions and nomenclature aside, it seems like best candidate for an initial basis, because: 1) it is more feature complete and 2) provides better compiler support.

Please let me know what you think is the remaining work to be done before a formal submission and I'll help with that.

Most of the remaining work is: * finish documenting the traits that have been defined in traits/*.h * add and document so more traits - although some is provided, there is more that needs to be defined. Also, perhaps add some more traits from the STL2 like `is_regular` and so on. * add more introductory documentation perhaps explaining about type requirements and why they are needed. Also, adding a comparison between Boost.ConceptCheck and this library. * refine the reference documentation A lot more work is documentation oriented, unless you see somethings that can be improved. Just open an issue. Also, Robert Ramey has done a lot of writing about type requirements, I would like to see if I can utilize some of that for introductory documentation perhaps, or maybe Robert could help with modifying some of the writings to focus it on the Tick library with the purpose of having it included in the Tick documentation. Thanks, Paul

Cheers!

JP

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost