>Eric Lemings wrote:
>> Martin Sebor
>>
>> This thread kind of fizzled out so let me resurrect it and reiterate
>> the proposed naming convention to follow unless more specific names
>> are appropriate:
>>
>> template <class _TypeT, class... _Types> # 1
>>
>> This is in contrast to other styles, including:
>>
>> template <class _Type, class... _Types> # 2
>> template <class _HeadT, class... _TailT> # 3
>> template <class _TType, class... _UTypes> # 4
>>
>> The rationale for the proposed convention (#1) is that:
>>
>> A) unlike the alternatives, the first name (_TypeT) follows
>> a well-established and entrenched convention for template
>> parameters used throughout the library
>> B) also unlike the alternatives, it is being used in the
>> implementation of <type_traits>
>> C) unlike (#2) (although not as well as #3) it more clearly
>> distinguishes between the name of the first parameter and
>> the parameter pack
>>
[...]
>
>In this case, it depends on whether the two parameters are actually part
>of the same type list. If _TypesT and _Types are actually part of the
>same type list then they should be named either _TypeT and _TypesT
>respectively (or _Type and _Types as shown in #2). If they are not part
>of the same type list, then they should be named _TypeT and _TypesU
>(similar to #4).
>
>In any case, a plural name should implicitly denote a template parameter
>pack (which actually should rule out #3 even though I've already been
>using it). :P
>
>Brad.
I'm with Brad
> Check the box below to vote:
>
> [ ] In favor
> [x] Opposed (suggest an improvement and rationale)
>
I think the names really depend on the intent and where it is being used. If
you have a parameter pack that is essentially a single typelist, like so...
template <class... _TTypes> struct S;
I'd expect the first template parameter and the parameter pack to have similar
names. The above will likely break down to the following recursive template
declaration...
template <class _TypeT> struct S;
template <class _TypeT, class... _TTypes> struct S;
If, on the other hand, the first argument stands alone and the parameter pack
is a typelist, then I'd expect something more like the following...
template <class _TypeT, class... _UTypes> struct S;
template <class _TypeT, class _TypeU> struct S;
template <class _TypeT, class _TypeU, class... _UTypes> struct S;
Travis
