On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 23:09:59 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
On 07/16/2013 01:02 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I generally use R 'cos it's less typing and I'm lazy
... ditto ... :-)
but Walter has been recently of the opinion that a more
descriptive name
is necessary for ddoc purposes, e.g.,
MyStruct(InputRange)(InputRange r)
is much more self-documenting than MyStruct(R)(R r).
Yes, that was my main consideration for this case. I'm worried
about the
potential for clashes with other elements of the namespace,
though.
I'm thinking in particular of the tendency to use Random as the
template
parameter name for a random number generator, when Random is
actually an alias
for the default RNG type. I've proposed a blanket rewrite of
such template
parameter names to Rng:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10434
Particular context is that I'm trying to tidy up/standardize
some bits of
std.random and I'd like my standards to be future-proof. :-)
struct SomeRangeWrapper(Range)
{
alias R = Range;
//...
}
Fixed.
I think "Range" is better, because it shows up in the docs, and
is a bit clearer than "R" (although anybody doing D should
understand it). But when working, "R" is easier. The above
approach solves both.
