[boost] Re: Re: Re: Proposed addition: sign_triats and[un]signed_cast

From: Jeffrey C. Jacobs (darklord_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-12 12:41:08

Well, I considered using T_ or some other name that does not constitute a
name reserved for implementation detail (e.g. IIRC any name begining with
underscore (_)), though this is only a draft.  I do need to use some name in
the original documentation, where the return type is described by the input
type so the documentation requires some way of saying: return based on "_T
refered to above", but I am happy to take the naming convention rules into
account in a future draft.  So how about:

const volatile Integral &X_

?  Or did you just mean I should drop the variable name in the context of
this discussion?

Either way, consider _T replaced with X_:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/TimeHorse/sign_traits.hpp

Jeffrey.

BTW David, you DO realize you name is mentioned elsewhere in my comments
about integrating this library with your integer_traits library?  Any
thoughts on that?

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:016501c259d3$b95fccb0$6401a8c0_at_boostconsulting.com...
> From: "Jeffrey C. Jacobs" <darklord_at_[hidden]>
>
>
> > Oh!  Good point, thanks Daniel!  Consider it done:
> >
> > const volatile Integral &_T
> >
>
> Is there some good reason you're using identifiers which are reserved to
> the implementation?
>
> I'm thinking of:
>
>     _T
>
> in particular.