From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-03 09:44:15
"Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]> wrote
>> David A. wrote:
>> > "Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > > Surely a trait is *part of the *definition* * of an *entity* in a
>> > > wider sense.
>> > I think I just quite definitively disagreed with that
>> > assertion already ;^)
>> Would you disagree with Andy even if that "wider sense" was a GP concept?
> I guess that David Abrahams is taking me to task on use of the word 'entity'
> which is defined in the standard (3-3).
No, I'm not. Just read the words I wrote. I simply reject the idea
that a trait specialization is part of the definition of the type(s)
it applies to.
Mssrs Little and Bergman seem to want me to mean something else, or to
qualify my statement so that I "agree in a wider sense". I mean what
I said: I disagree with the statement in any sense.
-- 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