David Abrahams wrote:
At Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:08:16 -0800, Robert Ramey wrote:
To summarize - I'm just very uncomfortable with the term "formal symatics" and don't think it can mean anything.
So do I understand correctly that you believe there are no possible meaningful formal semantics for "sort?"
I would feel comfortable saying there are meaningful semantics for "sort". When I see the term "formal semantics", it conjures up something along the lines that described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_semantics That it, "formal" suggest to me a level of mathematical rigor that doesn't exist here. It may be possible supply such rigor in this or some other cases, but I don't think that boost documentation can justify such an effort. I think a clear concise explanation of what the implemenation has to do is all that is necessary and all that is generally possible. I also think that in many cases it will unavoidable that there will be unforseen ambiguities. The usage of the term "formal semantics" suggests that this would not be the case. .I'm thinking the usage of the adjetive "formal" in this context is misleading. That's all. Robert Ramey