Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger@neoscientists.org>
Further tags don't really "handle" things -- they are just data. "Describe" (or alike) would be better in this context.
s/handled by/handled by using/
[While we're on English usage, and just in case you have or might use it in the documentation, note that your use of "alike" above is not idiomatically correct (in the US anyway), and I'm not positive it is semantically correct. "Similar" works fine as does "the like."]
Oh thanks -- a good thing to know (never thought it's formal, but it seems it's not even informal ;-) ).
When classifying types, it is often necessary to match against several possibilities of one aspect. The most important case is to match all of them. In other words, to ignore that aspect. The tags named "unspecified_" plus the aspect name describe these cases.
Still clear enough?
Pretty close:
When classifying types it is often necessary to match against several variations of one aspect. The most important case is to match any variation; that is, to ignore that aspect. The tags named "unspecified_" plus the aspect's name describe these cases.
Nice! "Variation" seems way better than "possibility"...
No. It's about what happens when an abstract tag (or whatever we call it) is used to describe a type to be created:
An abstract tag has a non-abstract semantical equivalence when used in the context of type synthesis
s/semantical/semantic/
With that, it seems pretty good.
Interesting! My dictionary tells me both "semantical" and "semantic" exist and both are adjectives with the same translation... Is it lying? Or does it depend on the context which one to use?
I've currently no idea how to say this without the "abstract" term, though.
I don't understand the subject well enough to offer any more help here, I'm afraid.
Never mind! Seems straighter, already... Thanks, Tobias