Subject: Re: [boost] [fusion] [intro] ADAPT_STRUCT extensions
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-15 06:52:48
On 8/13/10 6:46 PM, Lars Viklund wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:10:23PM +0200, Stefan Strasser wrote:
>> Zitat von Joel de Guzman<joel_at_[hidden]>:
>>> C'mon guys! We're venturing into the name-game land!
>>> If that's the game, then we should shout out why C++ confusingly
>>> has "struct" and "class" anyway which both have very little nuance.
>>> I don't want to go there. Sorry. This is not going to be another
>>> bike-shed issue.
>> that's a lot of confusion for a still undocumented bike-shed.
> For what it's worth, the first time I saw the macro mentioned on-list, I
> wondered why you needed a special macro for classes when you had a
> perfectly fine one for structs.
> Due to the fine distinction between struct/class, naming it _CLASS_
> would be doing everyone a disservice as it gives it connotations it
> shouldn't have.
> As for what it should be named, I won't suggest anything, as long as
> it's less ambigious.
Ok, fair enough. But as long as I don't see a better substitute,
the name will stand.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk