Boost logo

Boost :

From: ebf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2002-07-27 00:52:16

Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> 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.
> Votes, anyone?

As I mentioned in an earlier email, I am partial to the name "delayed
metafunction" (and, according, mpl::delay[N] instead of

Seeing as I couldn't find any replies to that message, however, I am
willing to cast my runoff vote in favor of "quoted metafunction" and

Basically, metafunction-class really doesn't do it for me. It seems
like it doesn't do it for too many other people either. And I'll be
glad to see mpl::meta_fun bite the dust ;)


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at