Re: The future of concepts

[Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd@verizon.net>]

Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 07/28/2009 10:47 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>> We need a gcc branch for concepts.
>
> Probably, if someone is working on them, just as for any ongoing project.
>
>> That leaves open the question of whether the ConceptGCC branch is the
>> one.
>
> No.  Doug felt that much of ConceptGCC needed to be rewritten; the 
> ConceptGCC branch is just a place to store the existing work for later 
> reference.
That effort did look dead.  It seemed to me like a clean slate would be 
nice.

One idea I had was to look at the metaprogramming pseudo concepts that 
seem to be in the library already and beefing those up.  Maybe that plus 
a tiny amount of core language secret sauce would be the best approach 
for concepts.
>
> There is a cxx0x-concepts-branch, but no work has been done on it. 
> Probably when someone starts serious work on reimplementing concepts 
> we'll create a new branch.  I don't currently have any plans to work 
> on concepts, as there are plenty of other things to work on that will 
> be in C++0x.
I agree.  There's constexpr, lambdas, nullptr, etc.

Then there's library stuff like regex mostly.

I was thinking we'd have a lot of green check marks for most of C++-0x 
when it finally comes out.  I think other compilers will too.  There 
won't be hardly any latency at all between ratification and good and 
broad support for C++-0x.  That's nothing to sneeze at.
>
> Jason
>