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

On May 26, 2015 2:22:11 PM EDT, Gottlob Frege wrote:

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:

...

On 26 May 2015 at 5:07, Rob Stewart wrote:

...

On May 25, 2015 7:09:57 PM EDT, Niall Douglas 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)