Re: [boost] nil

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-28 08:25:49

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tomasz Kowalczyk" <tomek_at_[hidden]>

> May be "empty". It's longer to write but I like it.
> What about "none" ?

We ought to be careful about claiming names, especially short ones, in the
boost namespace which might be better used for other things. I actually like
'nil' a bit better than 'none' in this respect. I guess "empty" isn't such a
good name in that case, either. I am ambivalent about this. I'm not sure
it's worth wasting time quibbling over this name, and perhaps nil was the
best name we could have after all.

nit-picking-ly y'rs
Dave