[boost] Re: nonary_function OK?

From: Szepesvari Csaba (szepes_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-06-16 12:21:05

Dear All,

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Nicolai Josuttis wrote:

> A related discussion to the compose discussion:
> I have also introduced type nonary_function as supplement for
> unary_function and binary_function for functions that take
> no arguments.
> Question:
>  Is the name nonary_function fine or should I use another name
>  (e.g. Kevin van Horn uses in his functor extensions
>   nullary_functions as far as I know) ?
> 
> Nico

I'm using zeroary_function.

Csaba

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications