From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 11:54:36
"Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> *I'm* not confused. I have no problem with the idea of having a
>> class
>>
>> a. whose _instances_ can be used as a function which squares numbers
>>
>> b. which is itself a metafunction class that computes the instance's
>> return type based on the arguments passed
>
> Snips...
>
> For the record, I am not against naming it "apply". However, I am not sure
> how that will jive with Doug's uniform return type proposal. I'm sure
> we do agree that there must be one and only one way to do it.
Yes.
And, for the record, I won't insist that it should be called "apply"
(though I *will* insist that it be a metafunction, i.e. with nested
::type). Most of all, I just want the implications considered.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com