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

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-28 14:20:17

Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]>
> 
>>Further tags don't really "handle" things -- they are just data. "Describe" (or 
>>alike) would be better in this context.
> 
> 
> s/handled by/handled by using/
> 
> [While we're on English usage, and just in case you have or might
> use it in the documentation, note that your use of "alike" above
> is not idiomatically correct (in the US anyway), and I'm not
> positive it is semantically correct.  "Similar" works fine as
> does "the like."]
> 

Oh thanks -- a good thing to know (never thought it's formal, but it seems it's 
not even informal ;-) ).

> 
>>     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.
>>
>>Still clear enough?
> 
> 
> Pretty close:
> 
>    When classifying types it is often necessary to match against
>    several variations of one aspect.  The most important case is
>    to match any variation; that is, to ignore that aspect.  The
>    tags named "unspecified_" plus the aspect's name describe
>    these cases.
> 

Nice! "Variation" seems way better than "possibility"...

>>No. It's about what happens when an abstract tag (or whatever we call it) is used 
>>to describe a type to be created:
>>
>>     An abstract tag has a non-abstract semantical equivalence when used in the
>>     context of type synthesis
> 
> 
> s/semantical/semantic/
> 
> With that, it seems pretty good.
> 

Interesting! My dictionary tells me both "semantical" and "semantic" exist and 
both are adjectives with the same translation...

Is it lying? Or does it depend on the context which one to use?

> 
>>I've currently no idea how to say this without the "abstract" term, though.
> 
> 
> I don't understand the subject well enough to offer any more help
> here, I'm afraid.
> 

Never mind! Seems straighter, already...

Thanks,

Tobias