Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-12 04:12:52


"Eric Friedman" <ebf_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > Eric Friedman <ebf_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>>At some point users need to learn to deal with the metafunction
> >>>idiom or we're going to be adding make_ to the beginning of every
> >>>metafunction name.

The metafunction naming style that instantly came to mind for me
 and honestly thought was in use ( as a newbie to MPL) was to add a '_t'
 to the name, hence


the precedent for this is the "wchar_t", "time_t","clock_t" etc types.

Its also much shorter to type and the suffix reflects the position of the
::type in the useage.
The user feels a natural urge to 'fill in' the "_t" with a "::type".
of course you could do more typing, but redundant typing is redundant :-)


(steering clear of the name metafunction as I may be using incorrectly )
with the metawidget returning a value the obvious choice is "_v"


this extends the "wchar_t" precedent of course to fit the MPL world

As a newbie to metafunctions I find the "make_x" style odd. I dont want to
"make" anything.
 That suggests run time hence "weak" from an MPL point of view. Hopefully as
a user by the time I use it it has already been "made"
I see MPL types as "hard immutable" things "metamorphed", "ground from"
,"chiselled f rom" my arguments at compile time,
unlike the weak and wibbly wobbly entities of runtime.

Apologies for wading in... but I feel much better with that off my chest :-)

Andy Little

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