From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-28 14:36:19
David Abrahams wrote:
> 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.
Ah, good point! I'll remove the line break.
>>>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.
I'll use the term "variation" instead of "possibility" (as just proposed by Rob
( changes: "variations of" inserted, corrected misplaced "(see reference)" )
The kinds of a type to be synthesised and complex classification queries are
described by *tag* types.
A tag encapsulates one or more aspects of the kind of type.
Tags which only encapsulate variations of a single aspect are called
*aspect tags* in the following text (see reference).
// - decoration aspect
typedef /.../ unspecified_decoration; // (*) (default)
typedef /.../ unbound; // (*) (matches the next three)
typedef /.../ undecorated;
typedef /.../ pointer;
typedef /.../ reference;
typedef /.../ member_pointer;
// (*) abstract - same as 'undecorated' when used for synthesis
// - variadic aspect
typedef /.../ unspecified_variadic; // (*) (default)
typedef /.../ non_variadic;
typedef /.../ variadic;
// (*) abstract - same as 'non_variadic' when used for synthesis
Does it work?!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk