From: Jesse Jones (jejones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-01 19:15:58
>In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jesse Jones
>>Callback doesn't mean event notification to me or, I think, many people. It
>>means deferred function call which is exactly exactly the concept we're
>Yes, the meaning of deferred call is the original one, but I have
>noticed a slow shift towards more specialised use in recent years, eg
>I don't know how much of the specialisation in vocab is related to the
>rise of event-driven architectures, but in common use it is no longer as
>general or unambiguous as it used to be.
That may be true, but the name callback still means something close to
"deferred function call" for a broad audience which is helpful.
>For STL function objects, I
>note that many users do not immediately think of them as callbacks
>although, strictly speaking, they are.
>So, I think that the use of the term callback is not as clear as you
>might have hoped, and we should -- as library authors -- be aware of and
>sensitive to that.
So, what's a better name? signal? event? function_ptr? I think the first
two are clearly worse names. function_ptr is almost a good name, but I
suspect Joe Average developer will prefer callback.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk