Talk:Functional (C++)

It's all meaningless jargon. What's wrong with you people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.221.186.82 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Rename page?
Should the page renamed from Functional (C++) to Function object (C++)? As far as I can see, the article never even mentioned the term "functional" until I added a note that refered to the  header file, and all sources I know use the term "function object" or "function-like object" or "functor" for callable entities. Even more, now that I have consulted the books by Stroustrup and Josuttis and the 2003 standard, they more or less consistently use the term "function object" to mean "instance of a class with an application operator", specifically excluding ordinary functions. This could mean that the definition currently provided by the article would have to be fixed. Even more radically, perhaps the article should be merged into function object? —Tobias Bergemann (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, most of the article talks not about function objects themselves, but about the facilities in the C++ standard library for handling them (coming from header, hence the title). Renaming this article to function object (C++) would introduce discrepancy between the title and the content. Also, there's already a section for function objects in C++ at Function object, so we probably don't want to duplicate it. I think a better option would be to rewrite this article to talk exclusively about the contents of and things related to that. 1exec1 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Following your suggestion I have tried to change the lead section so that the article now puts its focus on the standard header and the features it provides instead of on function objects in general. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)