Do you use nouns for class names that represent called objects?

A more general question is suggested here . Consider this as an extension to this.

I understand that classes represent the type of objects, and we must use nouns as their names. But there are function objects supported in many languages ​​that act more as functions than objects. Should I call these classes also nouns, or are verbs approved in this case. doSomething(), semantically, makes more sense than Something().

Update / Conclusion

The two top voices I received share a mixed opinion:

Attila

However, in the case of functors, they represent an “action,” so assigning them a verb (or some combination of nouns-verbs) is more appropriate - just as you would call a function based on what it does.

rook

An instance of a functor, on the other hand, is actually a function, and might be better named accordingly. Following Jim's suggestion above,SomethingDoer doSomething; doSomething();

Both of them, having passed some code, seem to be common practice. The GNU implementation stl I found the classes such as negate, plus, minus(BITS / stl_function.h), etc. And variate_generator, mersenne_twister(tr1 / random.h). Similarly, in the boost I found the classes such as base_visitor, predecessor_recorder(graph / visitors.hpp), as well as inverse, inplace_erase(icl / functors.hpp)