From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-19 13:05:30
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Finally, I don't like the fact that the term 'function type' is used to refer to
> pointers and references. This is bound to cause confusion. Also, it means that
> you have to write 'plain' all over the place. In my library, I used the term
> 'signature type,' which I wasn't too happy with, but at least it was clear that
> I wasn't referring to any pre-existing category of types.
How about "callable scalar [type]?"
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk