From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-27 04:06:49
>From: "Terje Slettebø" <tslettebo_at_[hidden]>
> This also is in agreement with what Aleksey says, that "metafunction
> tells about its form. It's a class. I think this makes sense. Just as
> "function object" tells about its form, it's an object. No need to make
> "class" or "object" mean something different, depending on whether or not
> "meta" is used in front. That could be confusing.
To tie this in with what Mat said about denoting something's role, or
function. For "metafunction class", "metafunction" tells about its role -
it's a metafunction (compile-time function), and "class" tells about its
form. Kevlin Henney would love this one, with his "Function follows form"
In run-time programming, it may be considered the same way, with "function
object", where "function" is its... function, :) or role, and "object" is
As "metafunctor" doesn't use the words "object" or "class", it might be used
for compile-time entities, too.
By the way, for those who may be curious, Merriam Webster online says the
following about "functor":
"functor : something that performs a function or an operation."
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk