From: Samuel Krempp (krempp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-26 13:47:45
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 16:26, David Abrahams wrote:
> I'm a bit lost. Have your looked at the MPL paper Aleksey and I wrote,
I must confess I hadn't..
Now that I did (by the way, it's brilliant, and quite exciting to read),
I realise that I was not aware that in your mouth 'metafunction' has a
precise meaning given by the conventions stated by this paper.
But until I had read this paper, my intuitive convention for
metafunctions in C++ was :
template<typename T> class f;
then T is the argument of the metafunction f, and
f<T> its result.
> It's a question of how you define "metafunction". Obviously, definining it
> in a way which always wraps is not very useful. Such a metafunction can
> never "return" int, for example.
Yes, that's whay I thought that metaprogramming vocubalary would never
be more than analogies when applied to C++..
A more poverful convention like yours makes it possible.
and then, okay, the metafunction really is identity..
That'll teach me for participating in a thread without being aware of
all the pre-requisite knowledge !
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk