Proposal to add 'Elements of Programming' Concepts to std.traits

[Guillaume Chatelet]

On 06/17/12 18:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 
> This is a good idea because the traits are useful within and outside the
> algorithms discussed in EoP.
> 
> However, I don't think we need to abide strictly to the nomenclature
> (e.g. some of the stuff in EoP was already defined with a different
> name) although some EoP names are more mathematicky (such as "Codomain"
> vs. "ReturnType"). One issue is when EoP goes off and defines its own
> terms such as "regular type", which is usually known as "value type". In
> fact, "regular type" means something completely different in PL
> research. EoP's terminology didn't catch up outside C++ and sometimes
> outside a small group within it.
> 
> If I'm allowed to venture an opinion on EoP itself, it's an interesting
> book but I don't find it as big or great as some of its fans believe.
> It's not breaking any new ground, instead it explores more along already
> well-trodden territory, and it fails to find new mother lodes. Some
> (many?) chapters (such as transformations and orbits) describe some
> self-important notions but fail to demonstrate their general
> applicability. Nevertheless, the code really is exquisitely written, and
> studying it has significantly changed my approach and style in
> implementing algorithms.
> 
> 
> Andrei

What would you recommend ?

Something more practical as Stroustrup and Sutton N3351's proposal :
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3351.pdf
We can also get inspired by Sutton's origin project :
http://code.google.com/p/origin