2010/10/7 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com>:
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.
I was using "bound" as a verb in those cases: "ct_bound" means bound at compile time. According to reference.com, "bound" as a noun is usually in the plural, so I didn't confuse "bound" as a noun in my suggestions, though I can see how others might.
You mean "bound" as past participle of "to bind", so "ct_bound" would mean something that has been bound (i.e., "binded") at compile time? I think the operation we want to express is bounding rather than binding...
My suggestion was to make "ct" a prefix akin to "static_" in static_cast and static_assert. I do like the parallel with "rt," so I would prefer these:
ct_bounded<int> rt_bounded<short>
The former is the subset of the latter, so "rt_bounded" is not a good idea since it may represent objects with compile-time-fixed bounds as well. I think just "bounded" is the best. 2010/10/7 Krzysztof Czainski <1czajnik@gmail.com>:
I prefere sufexes, becaluse then the part of the name, that brings most information comes first:
bounded_ct<int> x; // bounded at compile time of type int bounded<int> x; // bounded (at run time) of type int
I agree with you for the same reason. Moreover, if you start typing "boun..." in an IDE, its autocomplete will show both the options, so it has a small productivity advantage too. ;-) Best regards, Robert