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

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-30 11:53:56

John Maddock wrote:
>>I'm not convinced, yet. Maybe I'm having difficulties to fully understand 
>>you. Can
>>you perhaps try to clarify what makes "abstract" unsuitable in your 
>>opinion?
> 
> 
> Well in C++ at least abstract has a specific meaning, 

Excuse my blunt question: did you read the part of my previous post about the 
analogy with abstract classes?

( In fact, I was very much looking forward to read your comments on this :-) ).

> and from Webster's we 
> get:
> 
> "Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. "

A category for one possibilty of a mutually exclusive group of variations (with a 
similar /abstract concept/, for that matter) /is/ apart from /concrete existence/, 
isn't it?

> 
> What we have here in this case is a union of several concrete concepts, it's 
> more like a wildcard really: "match a or b or c".

The reason to have a term for it at all is /not/ to document the match -- it's to 
document the synthesis behaviour.

I've nothing against changing that term, however, "abstract" still cuts it best 
and even the definition from Webster's seems to fit nicely IMO.

Btw. a "named wildcard that represents a category of variations with a similar 
(abstract) concept" matches the above defintion as well, doesn't it?

I still don't get what's wrong with the "abstract" term, I guess...

Sorry,

Tobias