Re: [boost] [function types] New tag type logic [update]

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-30 10:53:29

> That use of free_or_static seems just plain wrong.  Why would you
> synthesize a type while giving a choice as to how it is
> decorated?  Yes, you can document that free_or_static and
> undecorated are the same in this context, but it is confusing at
> best.

Since free functions and static [member] functions are the same type, should 
we just use "free_" as the prefix and drop "free_or_static_" ?

I've no strong preference over this suggestion, just looking to avoid any 
confusion,

John.