Re: [boost] [next gen future-promise] What to call the monadic return type?

Subject: Re: [boost] [next gen future-promise] What to call the monadic return type?
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-26 14:22:11

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Niall Douglas
<s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 26 May 2015 at 5:07, Rob Stewart wrote:
>
>> On May 25, 2015 7:09:57 PM EDT, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > On 25 May 2015 at 23:35, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> >
>> > Names suggested so far are maybe, result, holder, value.
>>
>> I'm still trying to understand use cases to help guide naming.
>
> Exactly why I asked for people to bikeshed here on the naming. I am
> also unsure.
>
>> However,
>> among those choices, "result" seems best. That said, one often refers to
>> the result of a function, so discussing a function that returns a
>> "result" would get awkward. Perhaps "retval" would convey the idea well
>> enough and be less awkward?
>
> One vote for result<T>. One vote for retval<T>. Okay.

I would suggest taking

>> That said, one often refers to
>> the result of a function, so discussing a function that returns a
>> "result" would get awkward.

as a vote *against* the name 'result'.  Or take my vote as being
against 'result'. Or both.

Same thing came up in committee with "dumb_ptr" - any names like
"raw_ptr", etc, (and in your case 'result<>') are bad because they
cause confusion when spoken,