Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger@neoscientists.org>
The kinds of types to be synthesised and complex classification queries are described by *tag* types.
A tag encapsulates one or more aspects of the kind of type. Tags that represent the variations of a single aspect are called *aspect tags*.
or:
The kinds of types to be synthesised and complex classification queries are described by *tag* types. A tag encapsulates one or more aspects of the kind of type.
Tags that represent the variations of a single aspect are called *aspect tags*.
I wouldn't keep either break. Here's a variation of the sentences you wrote above (besides putting all three sentences in one paragraph).
Complex classification queries and the kinds of types you can synthesize are described by *tag* types. A tag represents one or more aspects of a type's kind. Tags that represent the variations of a single aspect are called *aspect tags*.
The first sentence, as you wrote it, was a bit awkward. While reading it, one first things the conjunction "and" combines "synthesized" and "complex." Reading on, one realizes that it is combining "kinds" and "queries." My rewrite should eliminate that problem.
This is a good point. I'm not entirely satisfied with your rewrite because more aggressive restructuring might even be better: The library uses *tag* types in order to represent or query a type's kind; a tag encapsulates one or more aspects of it. Tags that represent the variations of a single aspect are called *aspect tags*. Works?
Also, I don't see the value in having two (or three) paragraphs for this text.
Well, I'ld like to keep two paragraphs, one for each defintion. I find this kind of structuring helpful when reading documentation myself and I believe I'm not the only one. But I sometimes seem to overdo it when writing... Thanks, Tobias