From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-25 12:41:19
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mat Marcus" <mmarcus_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Formal Review: Template MetaprogrammingLibrary
> 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
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
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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk