Re: [boost] [function types] New tag type logic

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-28 03:34:49

David Abrahams wrote:
> Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> 
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>>Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>  When classifying types, it is often neccessary to match supersets of
>>>>>  possibilities for one aspect:
>>>>>
>>>>>  The most important case is to match all possibilities which means in fact to
>>>>>  ignore that aspect (the names of the corresponding aspect tags are prefixed with
>>>>>  "unspecified" for this case).
>>>>
>>>>  When classifying types, it is often necessary to match against
>>>>  any of several aspects.  The most important case is to match
>>>>  all possibilities.  In other words, to ignore that aspect.
>>>>  That case is handled by the tag named "unspecified_" plus the
>>>>  aspect name).
>>>
>>>
>>>I can't understand either phrasing.
>>>
>>
>>With or without its context (five levels up the thread)?
> 
> 
> Without, I guess.  But it's hard to imagine a context that makes it
> understandable.  In particular, 
> 
>    The most important case is to match all possibilities.  In other
>    words, to ignore that aspect.
> 
> There is no singular thing for "that" to refer to here.  

True for the second version, for the first (and the latest, parallel to you post 
in this thread) there is "one aspect" in the preceding sentence. Is it too far away?

> 
> Also, the text there beginning with "In other words," and ending with
> a period is not a complete sentence.
> 

Will it become a valid subordinate clause if we change the period before it to a dash?

In a whole:

      When classifying types, it is often necessary to match against
      several possibilities of one aspect.
      The most important case is to match all of them -- in other words:
      to ignore that aspect. The tags named "unspecified_" plus the aspect
      name describe these cases.

Does this work?

Thanks,

Tobias