C++Talk.NET

Gennaro Prota · Guest

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 ]

Guest

Gennaro Prota wrote: