Re: [boost] [function types] Review

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