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 perhaps try to clarify what makes "abstract" unsuitable in your
> 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
> "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/,
> 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...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk