View source for Talk:cpp/named req

== (C++11) ==

Why are some of the concepts marked as {{mark c++11}} ? None of the concepts were added before C++11, and they still aren't yet added to the standard. --- [[Undeterminant]] 17:28, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
: What this page is listing is properly called '''requirements'''. The 2003 revision of the C++ standard is defined in terms of requirements, such as ''CopyConstructible'', ''Assignable'', ''LessThanComparable'', etc. The 2011 revision adds many more requirements (some of which are detailed under §17.6.3[utility.requirements]). I think this is a great idea, since it makes it much easier to be precise in the rest of this wiki. --[[User:Cubbi|Cubbi]] 18:47, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
::Ah, okay. That makes more sense, then. --- [[Undeterminant]] 19:02, 21 March 2012 (PDT)

:: Is there a fundamental difference between "concepts" and "requirements"? As far as I remember, the committee used concepts to specify the constraints on templates throughout the draft paper in almost the same way as they now use requirements. To me it seems that direct language support is the only thing that these terms differ. Is there much ambiguity if we refer requirements by concepts, but also add an explanation in the page? -- [[User:P12|P12]] 11:38, 22 March 2012 (PDT)

:: After a further thought, I think that similarity doesn't mean anything if the terms are confusing. We could resolve this ambiguity easily by just replacing ''concepts'' with ''requirements'' or ''named requirements'' in {{tl|cpp/named req/title}}, {{tl|dcl list concept}} and several link names. -- [[User:P12|P12]] 14:07, 22 March 2012 (PDT)

::: I'm very slightly leaning towards renaming concepts => requirements.  But only slightly.  The current form, with the explanation as to what's going on, is tolerable and might save us some effort once concepts actually make it into the language. [[User:Nate|Nate]] 16:24, 22 March 2012 (PDT)