|
Boost : |
From: Nicolai Josuttis (nicolai.josuttis_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-06-15 12:16:25
Valentin Bonnard wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
> >
> > At 12:04 AM 6/15/99 -0700, Jerry Schwarz wrote:
> >
> > >How about something like
> > >
> > >compose_f_gx
> > >compose_f_gx_hx
> > >compose_f_gx_hy
> > >compose_f_gxy
> > >
Dont forget
compose_f_g
for the functor that takes no argument.
>
> Clear convention:
> - f,g,h are first parameters
and the order is the same as the order of the arguments
>
> - x,y,z are second parameters
>
> > The _f seems redundant. Could we drop it (and adjust accordingly)?
> >
> > compose_fx
> > compose_fx_gx
> > compose_fx_gy
> > compose_fxy
>
> The result makes no sens now. compose_fx looks like
> function application.
I agree, compose_f_gx makes clear that we compose two functions.
>
Nico
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk