Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >
>> > So, now the question is, how to name the adaptor? :) Does
>> > 'unroll_args' sound right/good enough?
>>
>> Neat idea! How about "unary" or "unaryize"?
>
> I like the latter, but it doesn't appear to be a word; "unarize" is not a
> word either, but at least google finds a couple of them :). On a second
> thought, I am not sure if it's a good choice. Does
>
> apply< unarize<F>, list<int,long> >::type
>
> convey the discussed meaning for you?
OK, I have two new ideas:
on_arg_seq
with_arg_seq
I like the first one, though many people use "on_..." for something
very different in event-driven code. The second one has some
Lisp/Scheme tradition behind it, I believe... just in the "with_..."
naming convention.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
