From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
When classifying types, it is often necessary to test for any one of several variations of an aspect. A common case is ignoring an aspect which means to allow a match for any variation of that aspect
Please excuse me for jumping into the middle of this discussion. I am only a budding metaprogrammer, so that influences how I read things like this, so bear with me. With this phrasing, it is unclear to me whether the common case is "ignoring an aspect" or if it is really "allowing a match for any variation of an aspect" which I can do by "ignoring an aspect."
Neither quoted sentence seems long or complex. Perhaps there was something you snipped to which you were referring?
Here's the full text of my suggestion:
When classifying types, it is often necessary to test for any one of several variations of an aspect. A common case is ignoring an aspect which means to allow a match for any variation of that aspect and is only useful when also testing for other aspects. Ignoring an aspect means using an "unspecified_*" tag. For example, allowing a match for any decoration requires using the <tt>unspecified_decoration</tt> tag.
In this paragraph, you are telling me that "ignoring an aspect" is "allow a match for any variation of that aspect" (sentence 2) and that "ignoring an aspect" is "using an "unspecified_*" tag" (sentence 3). The use of "means" in both sentences is awkward. It is also unclear that "allow a match for any variation of that aspect" is actually the same as "using an unspecified_* tag." I tend to be more conversational in my writing, but I would be tempted to write something like: When classifying types, it is often necessary to test for any one of several variations of an aspect. A common case is allowing a match for any variation of an aspect. This is done by ignoring that aspect and is implemented by using an "unspecified_*" tag. For example, to allow a match For any decoration would require using the <tt>unspecified_decoration</tt> tag. I just wanted to throw in my $.02. I'll go back into lurker mode now. :) Joe