From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-12 18:22:46
"David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David (Abrahams),
> First of all, I am excited that your proposal has been formally excepted
> into the TR, since the dichotomy of yours is the way to go. The reason for
> me to stay at the naming of things is to make you understand that there is a
> slight possibility of even quite skilled individuals being led astray by the
> terminology; as to perhaps clarify certain notions in forthcoming revisions.
> Since the old treatment of iterators dealt with only one dimension, they
> used the word "category." No need to be more specific "back then..."
> It is a bit confusing if we, in this new two-dimensional iterative
> world, use "category" *both* for the combined (intersected)
> concepts, being analogous to the old concepts, *and* for one of the
> dimensions. In our case, Traversal.
We are not ever doing that, AFAIK. "Category" never refers to
"Traversal" and always refers to old-style concepts/tags. If you know
of a place in the text where that happens, please point to it.
> We have to make the meta programming facilities, such as the tags
> used, be backward-compatible, with that I agree. So, we have to keep
> the "category tag" and "iterator category" and map them to something
> We just have to live with the categories, as realized by category
> tags, dealing *both* with unique combinations of the two orthogonal
> issues (backward compatibility etc.) *and* with only one of the
> issues, Traversal, I assume.
Now I'm lost again.
> Could one not make that clear, such as:
> "category tags can dispatch
Tags don't dispatch, and I consider that phrase extremely confusing,
and possibly misleading.
> based on both traversal capability and the combined capabilities of
> traversal and access"
Besides that, I have no clue about the intended meaning of the above
statement, so I wouldn't make it in an effort to clarify anything.
> I understand, and always understood, your proposal, which is very
> welcome, but I do also understand if others might find the
> mentioning of "category" a bit misleading, since we have the old,
> combined world, and the new dichotomy to deal with.
I still don't understand what you consider misleading. Please point
to a sentence and describe how it can be misread.
> And... one does, unfortunately, use the word "category" in generic
> programming for both a single concept and a family of related
I've never heard that before, and I'm pretty well-versed in GP. If
you could point me to an example in the literature, I'd be indebted.
> often including refinement hierarchies :-| I prefer the less charged word
> "set of concepts" that you used.
I appreciate that you're only trying to be helpful, but I really
can't understand you. Trying to figure out what you mean takes a lot
of time. If you won't take this suggestion,
Quote some text from the paper, say "I think it should say
________" instead, and then say why you think so.
I don't think I'm going to spend much more time trying to figure out
what you want.
-- 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