29 Sep
2005
29 Sep
'05
12:43 p.m.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:32:24 +0200, Robert Kawulak wrote
Uhh, maybe you're right ;-) I don't know why, but it just "byte my eyes" when I see a type named "something_value"... Nevermind, if people here really resist that it should be called constrained_value instead of constrained_type, then OK - I'll change it.
Why not just 'constrained'? ie. constrained<int>?
Sounds good, and how to call the library? 'constrained_types'?
When I called it constrained_value I did that b/c the types that could be create d with it are all value types. In retrospect, constrained_int might have been more accurate for my class. For what you're working on, I think constrained_type or just plain constrained would probably be fine too. Jeff