Re: [boost] Smart Pointer Feature Model

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-17 22:53:42

meta_if sounds a bit like a question about a question to me.
I think compile_time_if is better than meta_if.
Not sure where I stand on ct_if.

$.02
penny-for-your-thoughts-ly y'rs,
dave

----- Original Message -----
From: <jsiek_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Smart Pointer Feature Model

>
> meta_if sounds good to me too.
>
> Kevlin Henney writes:
>  > In message <01a401bfedcf$ed449050$37781990_at_[hidden]>, Greg Colvin
>  > <greg_at_[hidden]> writes
>  > >From: Beman Dawes <beman_at_[hidden]>
>  > >>
>  > >> By the way, I agree the names just have to be changed or there will
be
>  > >> constant fear of macro clashes.  ct_ seems cryptic; how about meta_
as in
>  > >> meta_if ?  But I'd get used to ct_if I suppose.
>  > >
>  > >Of course the simple IF form gives more readable code.
>  >
>  > But is also a macro-style name :-(
>  >
>  > I've got to admit that I'm partial to Beman's suggestion of meta_* for
>  > the constructs, as this hints more than a little strongly at "template
>  > metaprogramming".