RE: [boost] Re: Policy or Trait?

From: Hurd, Matthew (hurdm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-02 00:53:24

> On Behalf Of David Bergman
> Sent: Friday, 2 April 2004 2:37 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: RE: [boost] Re: Policy or Trait?
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> > So, for me it is pretty easy, traits *only* describes
> > Model-invariant parts of Concept Features while policies
> > furnish Models of Concepts.
> 
> Skipping all the GP stuff: traits DESCRIBE and policies ACT.

Nice and simple.  

Gennadiy Rozental disagrees though.  He gives the example of how to
print something as a trait but this acts.  

A type in a trait could also be a description or reference of an action
to take even more indirectly.  

To me the description of the action and the action is not clear cut.
When describing the action is a level of indirection really necessary to
make it a trait?

I can see both cases...

Matt Hurd.

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments.  Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited.  Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument.  Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.