On 8/31/05, Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> wrote:
I agree that 'mapped_type' would be a better name here, but then I find the whole '_type' convention for these two suboptimal:
1. It makes it sound like the templates are trivial metafuntions for the corresponding STL typedefs, which is not the case.
2. Pretty much everything in MPL is a type; the '_type' suffix doesn't add any semantic value to the names besides contributing to #1, and, I believe, is somewhat misleading: "What do you mean, key _type_? It's key's value!".
So, if we were to rename/introduce synonyms for these, I'd rather keep 'key'/'value' terminology and replace '_type' with something more explicit/less ambiguous [key_part and value_part table]
Definately agreed on those points, though I still say it should be mapped_part as opposed to value_part as it's the mapped part of the value (again, to stay consistent with STL naming). -- -Matt Calabrese