Re: [boost] [constrained_value] Constrained Value review results

Subject: Re: [boost] [constrained_value] Constrained Value review results
From: Robert Kawulak (robert.kawulak_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-06 20:45:10

> From: Stewart, Robert
> My preference
> is to use "CT" for that (because its an abbreviation for "compile time"), though it is very terse and
> could mean other things in other contexts.

"ct" is indeed cryptic, but I think it won't be easily mistaken for something else (like "int" in "bounded_int" might be) and once
one gets to know it stands for "compile time" the names become quite clear:

bounded<int> // bounds specified at runtime
bounded_ct<int, 0, 10> // bounds specified as compile time constants

Looks good to me.

Maybe even "c" alone would suffice?

bounded_c<int, 0, 10>

Reminds me of boost::mpl::integral_c.

> instead of "bounded," use "bound," "bounds,"

Using "bound" or "bounds" seems misleading to me. The object represented by the type is a bounded value, not value of the bounds.

> or "constrained."

Constrained objects are a superset of bounded objects while we're looking for a name for a subset of bounded objects so using
"constrained" does not make sense.

> >From among these, my vote would be for "ct_bound_int" or "constant_bounds_int" and being short and
> clear.

The "int" suffix is unnecessary, the whole point was to replace it with something better. ;-)

> From: Christian Holmquist
> I think bounded_int or bounded_integral seems just fine.

bounded_integral is more precise than bounded_int, but still not exhaustive (integrals are not all possible types that can be used).

> From: Thorsten Ottosen
> bounded_int and bounded_float is fine with me too. Since the library is
> called constrained_value, contrained_int and constrained_float would be
> fine too.

Ditto about "constrained". And why "bounded_float"? I was thinking that for floats you would just use "bounded" template.

> From: Paul A. Bristow
> I also like the word 'static' - it implies 'fixed at compile time' to me,
> but I agree static has other possible implications.

How about "statically_bounded"?

> So
> 
> fixed_bound is my suggestion, FWIW.
> 
> fixed_bound<int, 0, 23>::type hour;

Ditto about "bound". And "fixed_bounded" looks weird, it's as if the value was itself fixed. But maybe it's not that bad?

Thanks for the replies and best regards,
Robert