[boost] Re: Review Request: FC++

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 11:54:36

"Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> *I'm* not confused.  I have no problem with the idea of having a
>> class
>> 
>>   a. whose _instances_ can be used as a function which squares numbers
>> 
>>   b. which is itself a metafunction class that computes the instance's
>>      return type based on the arguments passed
>
> Snips...
>
> For the record, I am not against naming it "apply". However, I am not sure 
> how that will jive with Doug's uniform return type proposal. I'm sure
> we do agree that there must be one and only one way to do it. 

Yes.

And, for the record, I won't insist that it should be called "apply"
(though I *will* insist that it be a metafunction, i.e. with nested
::type).  Most of all, I just want the implications considered.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com