On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Ian Bicking wrote: >Umm... this isn't helpful. "Generic" and "concept" are not terms that >belong to Boost or STL or whatever. They are just words. Coining the >term doesn't mean anyone else knows what it means, nor that anyone >*should* know what they mean -- personally I get very suspicious of >ideas that are based on redefined words, that tends to be a way of >hiding complexity or fuzziness. > >But anyway, if you use these terms, you really must provide references, >otherwise no one will know what you mean. "Python could have honest >support of concepts" is simply an incomplete sentence. "Python could >have honest support of Concepts (url)" would be more reasonable.
Sorry. I use definitions from there sources: 1. http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~musser/gp/ 2. "A Formalization of Concepts for Generic Programming" (google could find PDF of that). If I am correct, this one: http://www.osl.iu.edu/publications/pubs/2004/willcock04:_formal_concep_gener_progr.pdf (it is safe to skip till example on Fig.1 to grasp the idea behind a concept. Relations between concepts are also very logical and remind of inheritance, association and aggregation) 3. "The Boost Graph Library" by Jeremy Siek, et al with A.Stepanov's foreword is a good way to see GP != STL. Probably Boost docs contain some knowledge on the topic, at least Boost Graph Library's ones (which I read). >"Python could have honest support of Concepts (url)" - of course, right now those sources are C++-specific. But I could see that Python has even greater potential to have concepts ahead of C++ and with greater usefulness at the same time. Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] =\= My AI powered by GNU/Linux RedHat 7.3 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
