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

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-29 13:44:08

From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> >    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...?"

I don't see the problem.  Please suggest an alternative that you
don't find "way too twisty."

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

Neither quoted sentence seems long or complex.  Perhaps there
was something you snipped to which you were referring?

Here's the full text of my suggestion:

   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 and is only useful when also testing
   for other aspects.  Ignoring an aspect means using an
   "unspecified_*" tag.  For example, allowing a match for any
   decoration requires using the <tt>unspecified_decoration</tt>
   tag.

Are you referring to the second sentence?  I could split it at
"and" forming two sentences:

   A common case is ignoring an aspect which means to allow a
   match for any variation of that aspect.  That is only useful
   when also testing for other aspects.

Is that what you wanted?  I still find the original to be fine,
but if you like the split version, I won't argue the point.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;