stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] naming convention for variadic template arguments
Date Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:53:27 GMT
Eric Lemings wrote:
> If we are proposing this pattern as a naming convention for variadic
> template parameters, then I would find that acceptable.

As I said in the VOTE post:

   "...the proposed naming convention to follow unless more
   specific names are appropriate"

When it's known that all the types model the same concept,
using the name of the concept instead of the generic TypeT
certainly sounds like a good idea. That's also why we have
template parameters named InputIter[ator] and similar in
the existing code base rather than just TypeT and TypeU

That said, I hope not to get too distracted by a discussion
of hypothetical cases. The point of this vote is to
[re]establish consistency in areas where newly added code
has started to diverge. If we find in the future that the
convention doesn't adequately cover some new cases we can
certainly revisit it and tighten things up to address the
cases we missed this time.


View raw message