From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-30 16:04:19
From: Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> > 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.
> And require another underscore suffix for static...
Oh, right. There was an expressed desire to avoid the
There's still the issue of which the library would use when
querying a type, so I'll recant and return to my original goal:
don't have duplicates.
-- 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