-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Thorsten Ottosen Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 2:21 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [constrained_value] Constrained Value review results
Den 06-10-2010 14:46, Christian Holmquist skrev:
On 5 October 2010 20:43, Robert Kawulak<robert.kawulak@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello All,
As Gordon Woodhull has suggested, it'd be nice to try finding a better name for bounded_int:
The unique characteristic of this class is not that it's bounded or an int, but that the bounds are specified at compile time.
I think bounded_int or bounded_integral seems just fine. The class' compile time parameters and runtime parameters I assume the user can find in the documentation. From the header synopsis you gave in previous post it was already quite clear the interface.
bounded_int and bounded_float is fine with me too. Since the library is called constrained_value, contrained_int and constrained_float would be fine too.
Although most of the types are integral rather than floats, _int or _integral feels misleading. Doesn't the template parameter tell you the type? (If you care). I also like the word 'static' - it implies 'fixed at compile time' to me, but I agree static has other possible implications. So fixed_bound is my suggestion, FWIW. fixed_bound<int, 0, 23>::type hour; Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com