[boost] Re: result of compose discussion

From: Reid Sweatman (reids_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-06-18 20:11:16

Or use capitals and delete the underscores, as in OneArgFunction or
OneArgFunc.  I don't know whether that violates any naming conventions or
not.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Abrahams [mailto:abrahams_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 6:08 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]; 'boost_at_[hidden]'
> Subject: [boost] Re: result of compose discussion
> 
> 
> > names like one_arg_function, two_arg_function, and so on
> 
> This is the best one I've heard so far, and I don't think it 
> can be improved
> upon. I don't care about compatibility with the names 
> unary_function and
> binary_function much, since they're so poorly extensible. 
> Unary and binary
> really do refer to operator categories (see APL) and don't 
> translate well to
> generalized functions anyway.
> 
> If anyone thinks these names are too long (I don't) I'd be 
> willing to fall
> back on no_arg_fun, one_arg_fun, two_arg_fun, etc. (like 
> mem_fun), but I
> think that's unneccessary.
> 
> -Dave
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> eGroups Spotlight:
> "Lightning Strike Survivor List" - on-line support group for 
> lightning strike
> survivors and their families.  http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/111
> 
> 
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

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