Hi all,

it was suggested that I found a committee member to voice these two
issues at the next meeting, so I thought posting here was the best way
to achieve that without nagging individual members by private mail.

a) nullptr; as far as I can see in the nullptr proposal there's
   no mention of either names "null_ptr" and "null_pointer".
   Why?

   The latter would be in line with the current naming style, which
   mostly ban abbreviations, while the former would mimic auto_ptr,
   shared_ptr and related. Actually, come to think of it, I suppose
   *all* those facilities should have "_pointer", not "_ptr", in
   their name.

   Opinions? Anyone willing to carry this on?

b) static_assert: though there's a Boost-releated usage history
   behind it, I find that once it is formalized as part of a
   declaration the verbal form "assert" becomes unnatural (unless
   one thinks of it as a function declaration, which isn't the case).
   That form strongly suggests to me that I'm dealing with an
   expression.

   Anyone agreeing with me that it should be "static_assertion"?

--
Gennaro Prota

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

Gennaro Prota wrote:
> a) nullptr; as far as I can see in the nullptr proposal there's
>    no mention of either names "null_ptr" and "null_pointer".

>    The latter would be in line with the current naming style, which
>    mostly ban abbreviations, while the former would mimic auto_ptr,
>    shared_ptr and related. Actually, come to think of it, I suppose
>    *all* those facilities should have "_pointer", not "_ptr", in
>    their name.

null_ptr gets my vote FWIW, for consistency with the other pointers you
mentioned. I don't like abbreviations either but given that they are
already there I think consistency needs to be maintained.

$0.02.

Andrew Marlow

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]