From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-26 22:12:55
Mat Marcus wrote:
> 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".
Actually, I think that "quoted metafunction" is almost okay; I don't think
it's a better fit, though, because it's sounds a little bit foreign to C++
world, especially comparing to the competitor ;).
But anyway, I think I've already been stubborn enough to prove that a few
people would _really_ like to see the terminology changed :), so, I am
interested to see how many people on this list prefer one term ("quoted
metafunction") to another ("metafunction-class"). If "metafunction-class" is
going to be voted down, so be it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk