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

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-25 08:08:18

The following seem nasty and non-intuitive to a novice

ct_if, quote, quoted metafunction, metafunction class

but metafunctor really does bring something to mind
- though is the analogy with functor good enough?

Paul

Dr Paul A Bristow, hetp Chromatography
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  Mobile [phone]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Mat Marcus
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 6:14 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Formal Review: Template Metaprogramming Library
> (MPL)
>
>
> >> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_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?
>
>
> David Abrahams <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> replies
> > I think I prefer "metafunction class" to "quoted metafunction"
> for ordinary
> > use, but I have to agree with Peter's suggestion in this case.
> > meta_fun1<foo> sounds like it's making a metafunction, not a
> metafunction
> > class.
>
> Just a few comments about naming... I know we've been over this
> before so I won't suggest 'quoted metafunction' for the general
> purpose name again. But 'metafunction class' really doesn't click
> for me. Let me spend a moment guessing at why you chose the name
> metafunction class.
>
> <begin speculation>
> Presumably the current name tries to leverage terminology
> familiar to the reader by making an analogy with 'function
> object'. That is,
>
>   function is to function object
>         as
>   meta-function is to meta-'function object'
>
> Meta-'function object' could also be spelled metafunction
> metaobject (by the distributive law :-)). And metaobjects can be
> viewed as classes, thus the name metafunction class.
> <end speculation>
>
> Unfortunately, 'metafunction class' does not immediately bring
> meta(function object) to my mind. For such an end, perhaps the
> name 'metafunctor' would be better?
>
> Also, what ever happened to then proposal for the name ct_if?
>
> Thoughts?
> Mat
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>