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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-25 09:13:08

From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> FWIW, although "functor" has fallen out of favor in the C++ world, I agree
> with Mat's arguments and think "metafunctor" captures the whole thing
> pretty nicely for a user. However, though I don't understand it, I respect
> Aleksey's long-standing hatred for the term.
>
> As a possible compromise I will throw out "metafunction type" as a
> possibility.
> Since C++ metaprogramming is computation with types, this helps indicate
> that we have something which can be manipulated with higher-order
> functional code.

"Quoted metafunction" is still the best name for me. It conveys that
something has been done to the 'ordinary' metafunction to make it suitable
for use in certain contexts. The fact that "quoted" has no existing meaning
is a feature.