On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 4:21 AM Bjorn Reese via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> This is not a bike-shedding mail per se, but an inquery into a bike-
> shedding.
>
> The P0288 any_invocable proposal [1] has cause some naming discussions,
> such as P2265, which is tracked at [2].
>
> There were originally two proposals, both of which called it
> unique_function, but some are strongly against that name. My question
> is, what are the arguments against the unique_function name?

The biggest is that the nominal similarity to `unique_ptr` strongly
suggests that it owns the function. Which it doesn't.

Of course, this is also a problem for `any_invocable` and `any`.