Re: [boost] Re: Formal Review: Template MetaprogrammingLibrary (MPL)

From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-25 12:41:19

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mat Marcus" <mmarcus_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Formal Review: Template MetaprogrammingLibrary
(MPL)

> [snipped]
>
> Anyway never mind all of this. I don't really like these names
> that much, I was just trying to suggest alternatives since
> nobody else (with the exception of Peter Dimov) seemed to like
> "quoted metafunction". When learning MPL (before your fine
> paper was written) my breakthrough came when I realized the
> analogy with lisp. I still think quoted metafunction is a much
> better name. Perhaps I've beaten this one into the ground
> (again).
>
FWIW, I like 'quoted' too.

I'm a lot more comfortable thinking about MPL as a 'new' language in itself,
and only those analogies with other languages that feet *very* easily are
important to me; for the rest, I like it to define its own concepts and
terms.
To me, this 'metafunction class' or 'quoted metafunction' does not have a
clear counterpart, so I see it as MPL specific. That works better for me.
Besides, I consider more important the analogies with other "functional
languages" than with C++; that's why I like 'fold' better than 'accumulate'.

Therefore, I like quoted because I can easily make my mind around this new
thing of 'quoting' something.

Just my .02

Fernando Cacciola
Sierra s.r.l.
fcacciola_at_[hidden]
www.gosierra.com