Boost logo

Boost :

From: Christoph Ludwig (cludwig_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-11 10:31:26

On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 08:32:08AM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
> Christoph Ludwig <cludwig_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > 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.
> > I thought both ellipses
> ?? IIUC, this is an ellipsis:
> ...

That's one possible meaning of "ellipsis".

> and I don't see any above. Maybe ellipsis really means "omission"...

Well, back from my English lessons in school I remembered "ellipsis"
as a technical term from linguistics. And the online Merriam-Webster
(which I actually consulted before posting my last mail) seems to
agree: It lists the omission of words from a sentence under point
If you suggest that "omission" would have been less likely to cause
misunderstandings then I won't argue.

But please, let's stop here. I had no intentions of starting an OT
thread about the meaning of words. I only pointed out how
to parse Rani's sentence in order to allow your technical discussion to
go on.



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at