From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-25 10:59:00
From: "Mat Marcus" <mmarcus_at_[hidden]>
> > As a possible compromise I will throw out "metafunction type" as a
> > possibility.
> > Since C++ metaprogramming is computation with types, this helps
> > 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
Those are worse on all counts AFAICT. It's neither an object nor a value.
How does that help the user?
P.S. Please add line-wrapping to your outgoing messages ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk