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), - 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 - 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 - 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 (Note: all the abovementioned namespaces reside in 'boost::constrained_types') I'd appreciate any comments, especially of people experienced in the area of naming conventions :) Best regards, Robert