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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-06 18:03:06

Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:

> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> >> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> >> > From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> >> >> Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> >> >> > Rob Stewart wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>    When classifying types it is often necessary to match against
>> >> >> >>    several variations of one aspect.  Special, *abstract*
>> >> >> >>    variations make this possible.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Nice! Thanks!
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Except that "this" needs an antecedent.
>> >> >
>> >> > It has one: "to match."  
>> >> 
>> >> No, I mean, you can't just say "this;" you have to say "this <noun>."
>> >> It's the <noun> that's missing.
>> >
>> > Since when?  I've never heard of that "rule."  
>> 
>> Your "sarcasm" is unwarranted.
>
> Actually, there was no sarcasm.  I didn't want to call your
> statement a rule.  I chose to put "rule" in quotes to identify
> your statement as something presented as a rule that quite likely
> was never established by a competent authority.

Sorry, I should have said your "dismissiveness" is unwarranted.

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