From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-24 13:48:57
"David Bergman" <David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> writes:
> I suggest that we call anything applicable via mpl::apply a "metafunctor."
> And have "metafunctoid" denote that category extended with #1 - ordinary
> metafunctions - above.
No strong objection
> 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 book.)
Yeah, we managed to write the whole book without such a name, which
suggests maybe it isn't really needed.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com