Boost logo

Boost :

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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at