From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-30 14:16:28
From: Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]>
> John Maddock wrote:
> > Since free functions and static [member] functions are the same type, should
> > we just use "free_" as the prefix and drop "free_or_static_" ?
> 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...
In contradiction to my statement in another branch of this thread
about not having multiple tags that are interchangeable, perhaps
having both "free" and "static" would be helpful.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk