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

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-01 05:26:12

>> 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?

Yes, but I don't think I understood your argument, sorry.

> 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...

The term we use here is less important than most of the other comments that 
Rob and others have come up with, so if you're set on it, lets go with that 
until or unless someone comes up with a killer alternative.

John.