From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-25 10:44:14
"David Bergman" <David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> writes:
> I whined:
>> > It is a bit boring not to be able to use a common name for these
>> > constructs, especially when trying to tech others about
>> > metaprogramming techniques in
>> > C++. And I do not see such common names in the MPL
>> documentation (or
>> > C++book.)
> David Abrahams responded:
>> Yeah, we managed to write the whole book without such a name,
>> which suggests maybe it isn't really needed.
> That is true for experienced folks, but seems to break down when teaching
> this subject to more junior colleagues.
Our book is not directed at "more experienced folks"
> So, I will use "metafunctor" and "metafunctoid"
Those terms don't intimidate junior colleagues? They intimidate me!
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk