Re: [boost] [function types] Review

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-19 18:46:57

David Abrahams wrote:
> 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.
> 

*LOL* - you're right, of course...

> 
>>though.  Perhaps "functional scalar [type]" ?
> 
> 
> No worse, but is it better?
> 

Not sure. Are plain functions scalar, BTW. ?

Regards,

Tobias