Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-11 12:32:06

On 7/11/2011 10:56 AM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> On 7/10/2011 7:59 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>>> Review of Boost.TTI 2011-07-10 (Lorenzo Caminiti)
>>> 10. [NOTE] I think "member variable" is a more accepted name
>>> that "member data"-- isn't it? If so, I'd rename MEMBER_DATA
>> I can understand your preference. I will consider it.
> They are called data members, not member variables, in C++. Names like "member variable" come from other languages.
> I don't use "member data" generally, but to me it describes data members collectively, not singularly.
> I recognize the desire to keep the prefixes alike, but I'd rather see "HAS_DATA_MEMBER" to be consistent with Standard terminology.

I agree with your remark about the normal terminology. I could have used
HAS_DATA_MEMBER and HAS_MEMBER_FUNCTION but I wanted to align the names
around a common beginning. That is why I chose HAS_MEMBER_DATA and
HAS_STATIC_MEMBER_FUNCTION. Sometimes such mnemonic similarities (
having the same common beginnings ) is more important than other factors.

I know that this may start some long discussion about names in TTI, but
here is a general suggestion to all programmers who are ever upset about
names in a library, and does not just refer to TTI: if you do not like a
name, just create an object-like macro for your own use which takes some
name and transforms it to some other name which you like better.

Lorenzo might write the macro:


and you might write the macro:


This is guaranteed to work without problems all the time AFAIK to
transform one name to another.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at