From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-29 07:58:41
Bruno Lalande wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> It's also tempting to add a "member_object" trait at the same time
>> that transforms:
>>
>> int (foo::*) --> foo
>> int (foo::*)(double) --> foo
>
> Good idea, just a little naming consideration: member_to_object or
> object_from_member would sound more explicit to me...
Ah, yes the old naming problem ;-)
Don't forget the trait will likely always be used with the ::type suffix, so
member_object<T>::type
doesn't look so bad to me, but anyone else have preferences for these or
other names?
Thanks, John.