Re: Conditional requirements

From: David Abrahams (gclbb-jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-19 08:26:07

"pal.tw" <pal.tw_at_[hidden]> writes:

> --- In jamboost_at_[hidden], David Abrahams <gclbb-jamboost_at_m...> 
> wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_c...> writes:
>> > I think the simplest solution is to declare that in conditional
>> > property, part after ":" can be only free or incidental
>> 
>> Why would you want to impose that limitation?
>> 
>> > and that free/incidental features cannot be present before
>> > ":". Opinions? Anybody using non-free conditional properties?
>> 
>> I don't know; this sounds terribly limiting to me.
>
> But I think it sounds a good idea to prevent users from misusing the
> rule. 

What constitutes "misuse"? If we impose arbitrary restrictions,
otherwise-legitimate uses become misuses.

> If the properties with other attributes want to be combined,
> they can be declared by a "variant".

IMO variants are a separate and orthogonal idea.

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