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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-28 11:27:28

Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:

> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> 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.  
>
> The antecedent is missing.  Sorry about that.  s/that/an/

That doesn't help.  Then I have to ask "which aspect?"  I can't
connect "matching all possibilities" with "ignoring an aspect."

>> Also, the text there beginning with "In other words," and ending with
>> a period is not a complete sentence.
>
> Yeah, you're right, but I doubt that hindered your
> understanding.  

When it's already confusing, a fragment like that one doesn't help.Ž¬«q-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com