From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-19 16:58:17
Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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,
Sorry, which ones are those? Plain functions are surely callable.
> though. Perhaps "functional scalar [type]" ?
No worse, but is it better?
-- 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