Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> 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