From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-25 14:10:37
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> What you wrote above implies additional constraints not present in
>> Robert's statement. He doesn't say anything about persistency. I
>> can think of many useful Archives that don't "persist" in any
>> meaningful way. Whether those correspond to your notion of the
>> word "archive" is another matter.
> In fact, even Robert's statement doesn't describe all archives;
> we've been simplifying a bit. But this aside...
> OK, let's assume that you are right and I am wrong about the meaning
> of "archive". How does this advance your argument?
It defends against your argument. You seemed to be saying that the
kind of archives we're interested in are really illegitimate (not
archives at all), apparently to buttress your argument that they're
too much of a special case to warrant consideration in shaping the
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk