From: David A. Greene (greened_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-26 23:35:05
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>>I got very confused after reading Joel's message and your followup.
> Do you have better suggestions? The main requirement here is that the naming
> scheme should be able to cover all these bool, integer, fixed, and rational
> compile-time types ("objects").
The question I always ask when facing these sort of issues is: what
is the purpose of the thing I'm defining? The name should reflect
that. Now, I'm just starting out learning about template
metaprogramming, but from Andrei's book it looks like a common
use is to enable convenient overloading/specialization. Perhaps
the name should reflect that. Of course other uses should be
considered as well.
So no, I don't have a better suggestion because I'm not qualified
to make one. But I _can_ comment on whether something confuses
-- "Some little people have music in them, but Fats, he was all music, and you know how big he was." -- James P. Johnson
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk