From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-19 13:32:44
David Abrahams wrote:
> "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]?"
The direction is pretty good - seems it excludes the "plain" ones, though.
Perhaps "functional scalar [type]" ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk