From: Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-01 18:10:36
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 02:56:38PM -0700, Dave Gomboc wrote:
> I put about a day into looking at FC++ (reading the papers, trying to
Thanks for taking the time, and thanks for your comments.
A couple quick replies:
> "Functor" has for years been commonly used to mean "function object" (in
> addition to its original meaning from category theory).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functor]. Have no referees of your
> academic publications brought this up? There is no need to name anew
> a common concept: therefore, s/functoid/functor globally!
I don't recall this comment coming up from referees of the
publications. Note that, to the FP community, "functor" means
something completely different from what it means in C++.
In any case, "functoids" as described in those papers were a "new
concept" requiring a new name. A "functoid" was a "functor" that also
supported polymorphic return-type deduction.
This distinction is now becoming dated, though. In any case, the
overall point here (that the Boost documents on FC++ need to be
tailored to a C++ audience, rather than an FP audience) is taken.
> [various stuff about names/naming elided]
I have no objections to renaming various entities in the library, and
have received a number of good suggestions from many of you these past
two weeks. If the library is accepted, I'll try to consolidate the
suggestions and make the most commonly-requested changes.
-- -Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk