From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-30 11:22:48
John Maddock wrote:
>>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
> Since free functions and static [member] functions are the same type, should
> we just use "free_" as the prefix and drop "free_or_static_" ?
To be precised, it isn't a prefix but a "full grown" identifier of an aspect tag ;-).
Initially it was called "unbound". It was changed to "free_or_static" because it
is more intuitive. But that "_or_" may cause confusion.
So reverting to "unbound" would be another option...
> I've no strong preference over this suggestion, just looking to avoid any
Yeah, me not either. Comments welcome!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk