Re: [boost] [mpl] Metafunction terminology - revival?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-25 10:44:14

"David Bergman" <David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> writes:

> I whined:
>
>> > It is a bit boring not to be able to use a common name for these 
>> > constructs, especially when trying to tech others about 
>> > metaprogramming techniques in
>> > C++. And I do not see such common names in the MPL 
>> documentation (or 
>> > C++book.)
>
> David Abrahams responded:
>
>> Yeah, we managed to write the whole book without such a name, 
>> which suggests maybe it isn't really needed.
>
> That is true for experienced folks, but seems to break down when teaching
> this subject to more junior colleagues.

Our book is not directed at "more experienced folks"

> So, I will use "metafunctor" and "metafunctoid" 

Those terms don't intimidate junior colleagues?  They intimidate me!

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com