From: Mat Marcus (mmarcus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-25 09:28:03
--On Thursday, July 25, 2002 9:59 AM -0400 David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
> Since C++ metaprogramming is computation with types, this helps indicate
> that we have something which can be manipulated with higher-order
> functional code.
Hmmm. For me, metafunction type doesn't capture the role played by this construct for the user. And it still seems like it can be misread as "type of the metafunction". Other ideas: "metafunction object" or "metafunction value"?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk