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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-29 09:49:27

Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:

> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> >
>> >> There is no singular thing for "that" to refer to here. =20
>> >
>> > 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."
>
> Tough crowd. 8^}
>
>> >> 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. =20
>> 
>> When it's already confusing, a fragment like that one doesn't help.=8E=AC=
>
> How's this:
>
>    When classifying types, it is often necessary to test for any
>    one of several variations of an aspect.  A common case is
>    ignoring an aspect which means to allow a match for any
>    variation of that aspect 

No, way too twisty.  You just lost me.  Does the aspect mean "to
allow...", or is it an "aspect that means (intends) to allow..." or is
it "ignoring an aspect" that "means to allow...?"

Try to resist the temptation to pack all the meaning into one sentence.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com