Re: [boost] [mpl] Metafunction terminology - revival?

----- Mensaje original ----- De: David Bergman <David.Bergman@bergmangupta.com> Fecha: Lunes, Julio 24, 2006 9:11 pm Asunto: Re: [boost] [mpl] Metafunction terminology - revival?
"A woman is either nice or mean" is not a definition of the term "woman", yet the referred page stands for a definition of "lambda expression", so an "if and only if" implication is assumed. OK, Abrahams and Gurtovoy's book's chapter 3 has been webpublished at artima.com and there you can read the following: ( http://www.artima.com/cppsource/metafunctions2.html ) "We'll refer to metafunction classes like add_pointer_f and placeholder expressions like boost::add_pointer<_1> as lambda expressions." (add_pointer_f is a metafunction class defined a couple of paragraphs before.) Does this convince you? Anyway, we're not discussing Aristotle or Descartes, on the contrary we enjoy the presence of MPL authors amongst us and can always ask them directly. [This does not detract from the fact that your choice of terminology is probably superior, I'm only nitpicking you for the joy of discussion. I hope you're taking it similarly :) ]
[...]
I'd say lambda calculus captures aplicability better than the cartesian definition of function as a special subset of a product set AxB, but well, it's hard to argue this objectively. [...]
/David
Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
participants (1)
-
JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z