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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk