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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-28 06:52:19

Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> 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?

Well, it appears visually to be in a separate paragraph, so yes.  Now
I think I begin to understand it, but it seems like the you could drop
"which means in fact..."  What does it add that will help the reader?

>> 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?

Better.  Does this documentation really define what a "possibility of
an aspect" is?  If not, you had better do so, or better yet, pick more
understandable and evocative terminology.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com