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: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-27 05:11:50

On May 26, 2015 2:22:11 PM EDT, Gottlob Frege <gottlobfrege_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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:
> >> >
> >> > 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.

Exactly

> 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,

Right

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)