From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-11 08:32:08
Christoph Ludwig <cludwig_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > I'm not sure.
>> > When source and destinations un-cv types are the same or base/derived direct
>> > initialization and copy initialization are the same (per 8.5/14/4/2) and
>> > this fact was (viciously) exploited by the old auto_ptr.
>> Something's missing from that sentence to make it comprehensible.
>> It has the same grammatical structure as "When my hand is blue or my
>> hair is green and I was a fool", which is not a complete sentence.
> If you parse above sentence as
> When source and destinations un-cv types are the same or
> [are] base/derived [, then] direct initialization and copy
> initialization are the same (per 8.5/14/4/2) and this fact was
> (viciously) exploited by the old auto_ptr.
> then it seems perfectly comprehensible to me.
If you already know what the writer's intention was, maybe it's easy
to insert those conjunctions. It's not clear to me that they're
intended insertions. I read "base/derived direct initialization" as a
single noun phrase beginning with an adjective.
> I thought both ellipses
?? IIUC, this is an ellipsis:
and I don't see any above. Maybe ellipsis really means "omission"...
> were correct English
...but if so, omissions are correct only to the extent to which it
doesn't harm comprehensibility.
> , but I will leave this assessment to the native speakers.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk