David Abrahams wrote: > Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > IMO we should just stop using 'void_' for internal purposes and give it > > up to users :). > > I am still unsure about 'void_' being better than 'nil' or > 'null'.... Users already have a type, 'void', which means void.
... in conventional run-time programs. Unfortunately, 'void' is not special for metaprograms, many of which have a need to routinely manipulate it along with all other built-in types. 'mpl::void_' addresses this issue. > There's no correspondence between void_ and void the way there is > between bool_ and bool. 'void_' in MPL plays a role very similar to a role of 'void' in the core language. So, conceptually, there is a correspondence. Personally, I appreciate the analogy, dislike 'null'/'nil'/etc. for the lack of such, and would like to keep the name. Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
