Re: [boost] Re: Formal Review: Template Metaprogramming Library (MPL)

From: David Brownstein (David_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-24 12:27:46

Why not just call it MetaFunctionClass (or make_MetaFunctionClass)? It's at
least east to read and understand... ;-)

David Brownstein

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:04 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Formal Review: Template Metaprogramming Library
(MPL)

>
> From: "Aleksey Gurtovoy" <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]>
>
> > > I kind of like Mat Marcus' 'quote' terminology, where
> > > metafunction classes are called 'quoted metafunctions', and
> > > meta_fun[N] is spelled quote[N]. Have you considered it?
> >
> > Considering now :). Glad you've suggested an alternative, because I am
> not
> > happy with 'meta_fun'. As David has noted, it sounds like it's making a
> > metafunction, not a metafunction class; in that respect, I think that
> even
> > the previous 'make_f' spelling was better - at least it didn't misguide
> you.
> > I went with 'meta_fun' because I couldn't think of anything better, and
I
> > was running out of time scheduled for the renaming task (I also
> considered
> > 'to_mfc' or 'as_mfc' - where "mfc" stands for metafunction class, but
> that
> > one was quickly discarded for obvious reasons :).
> >
> > In any case, I like "quote", although it's slightly out of the current
> > terminology (which I would be reluctant to change). If something even
> better
> > won't come up till the end of the review, I guess 'meta_fun' will be
> renamed
> > to 'quote'.
>
> In favor of meta_fun, it's analogous to ptr_fun and mem_fun. That doesn't
> make me like it, though ;-).
>
> -Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost