On 2009-08-19, Joseph Wright wrote:
> I'd say "template class" is clearer than "template type" (you could also
> consider "set", but I'm not so sure about that).
"Class" could be misleading. In many flavours of OO, it is the classes
that contain implementation of things, so in that the term sounds more
like templates (and object similarly correspond to instance). "Type" as
in "type of function pointer" matches the template type concept fairly