From: David A. Greene (greened_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-28 17:05:58
Kevin Cline wrote:
> FWIW, I like the original names too. "int2type" is perfectly clear;
Better than int_t for the operation known as "unique type" IMHO.
But mpl uses int_t for other things as well. If all we're talking
about is usage _a_la_ MC++D, why not "unique_type?" I proposed
this in another thread, but no one seemed interested. Perhaps
it's a little too generic. unique_type<isPolymorphic> looks
a little strange. :)
> "type2type" is perhaps not as obvious, but it's a better name than
> anything else proposed so far.
dispatch_type? That's indicating a rather specific usage. I
kind of like type_wrapper myself. It's a kind of indirection.
type2type<...>::type is the "dereference" operation. Should
that somehow play into the name?
-- "Some little people have music in them, but Fats, he was all music, and you know how big he was." -- James P. Johnson
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk