From: "John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk>

Markus Werle wrote:

...

And yet std::string should have never made it into the standard. That beast is a counter example of cute design. We now have std::string and std::wstring and someday std::wwstring? This convention has no symmetry and I dislike it, too. It takes a lot of headache to get my code switched to unicode since all of it is polluted with the default 95% solution :-(

I hear you, but I still think you're wrong :-)

I think at this stage we need more opinions and some real world usage before changing these names again - we're on about the third naming scheme already - after previous discussions here.

My quick $.02: using double as the default makes perfect sense. As a developer, you are always free not to use the default. As a library user, you are stuck with whatever the library developers give you - but the same would be true even if there were no default. So I see no downside, and the upside is that the library is easier to use for beginners and for quick prototyping. - James Jones Administrative Data Mgmt. Webmaster 375 Raritan Center Pkwy, Suite A Data Architect Edison, NJ 08837