From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-17 11:06:32
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> Yes, probably; depends on whether Andrei would like to adopt ct_value<int,
> N> instead of int2type<N>.
>
> > I wonder if suffixing 'v' and 'q' to 'funtion' could look awkard with
some
> > specific functions names...
> > How about suffixing 'ct' instead: ctv_if<>, ctq_if<>...
>
> Not every function has ct_ in front (mpl:: is enough to disambiguate), but
> most still would have a quoted form.
I'm not very happy with the hungarian-esque notation that uses lots of
single letters to describe how things work, and I would prefer not to see
"ct_" anywhere.
Maybe we should be willing to consider a system where we write
select_type::call<value, T, F>::type
Consistency might be worth the extra typing.
-Dave