"David Bergman" <davidb@home.se> writes:
David (Abrahams),
First of all, I am excited that your proposal has been formally excepted into the TR, since the dichotomy of yours is the way to go. The reason for me to stay at the naming of things is to make you understand that there is a slight possibility of even quite skilled individuals being led astray by the terminology; as to perhaps clarify certain notions in forthcoming revisions.
Fine.
Since the old treatment of iterators dealt with only one dimension, they used the word "category." No need to be more specific "back then..."
It is a bit confusing if we, in this new two-dimensional iterative world, use "category" *both* for the combined (intersected) concepts, being analogous to the old concepts, *and* for one of the dimensions. In our case, Traversal.
We are not ever doing that, AFAIK. "Category" never refers to "Traversal" and always refers to old-style concepts/tags. If you know of a place in the text where that happens, please point to it.
We have to make the meta programming facilities, such as the tags used, be backward-compatible, with that I agree. So, we have to keep the "category tag" and "iterator category" and map them to something sensible.
We just have to live with the categories, as realized by category tags, dealing *both* with unique combinations of the two orthogonal issues (backward compatibility etc.) *and* with only one of the issues, Traversal, I assume.
Now I'm lost again.
Could one not make that clear, such as:
"category tags can dispatch
Tags don't dispatch, and I consider that phrase extremely confusing, and possibly misleading.
based on both traversal capability and the combined capabilities of traversal and access"
Besides that, I have no clue about the intended meaning of the above statement, so I wouldn't make it in an effort to clarify anything.
I understand, and always understood, your proposal, which is very welcome, but I do also understand if others might find the mentioning of "category" a bit misleading, since we have the old, combined world, and the new dichotomy to deal with.
I still don't understand what you consider misleading. Please point to a sentence and describe how it can be misread.
And... one does, unfortunately, use the word "category" in generic programming for both a single concept and a family of related concepts,
I've never heard that before, and I'm pretty well-versed in GP. If you could point me to an example in the literature, I'd be indebted.
often including refinement hierarchies :-| I prefer the less charged word "set of concepts" that you used.
I appreciate that you're only trying to be helpful, but I really can't understand you. Trying to figure out what you mean takes a lot of time. If you won't take this suggestion, Quote some text from the paper, say "I think it should say ________" instead, and then say why you think so. I don't think I'm going to spend much more time trying to figure out what you want. Sorry, -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com