On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:32:39 +0200, Robert Kawulak wrote
Hi everybody,
From: Robert Kawulak I didn't change the name of constrained_type template to constrained yet, but if this shorter form is OK then I'll do this before next update.
I'm considering some changes in naming, in particular:
- I'd change 'constrained_type' to 'constrained',
- I wonder if I should move 'constrained' and its aliases ('boounded_int' etc.) up form 'boost::constrained_types' namespace directly to 'boost' namespace - these are things that are most likely to be used and maybe 'boost' is better for them (or maybe, instead of moving them, using declarations in 'boost' will suffice),
I wouldn't put things directly into the boost namespace. It's not a big deal for people to get used to using or aliasing boost::constrained_types.
- the bounds specifiers are in 'boost::constrained_types::bounds_specifiers' namespace, so maybe there's no need to add '_bounds' to each name at the end:
bounds_specifiers::integral_bounds -> bounds_specifiers::integral bounds_specifiers::generated_bounds -> bounds_specifiers::generated bounds_specifiers::static_bounds -> bounds_specifiers::static
Makes sense.
- OTOH, the bounded policies' names seem to be to short and not properly chosen, I'd change their names so they say what the policy does when an attempt is made to assign an out-of-bounds value:
bounded_policies::error -> bounded_policies::failing bounded_policies::wrap -> bounded_policies::wrapping bounded_policies::clip -> bounded_policies::clipping
Probably better...
- maybe changing the namespaces' names from plural to singular would make the names of policies more meaningful:
error_policies::throw_exception -> error_policy::throw_exception bounded_policies::error -> bounded_policy::failing bounds_specifiers::static_bounds -> bounds_specifier::static
I prefer the plural. Jeff