On 1 June 2017 at 19:03, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 01/06/17 18:43 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote: >> >> On 1 June 2017 at 18:29, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> They all seem to be shortcuts for something::value, so it seems to me >>>> logical to have >>>> them all be _v. >>> The _v suffixes in the standard are there to distinguish std::foo from >>> std::foo_v, but we don't have that problem. >> Wouldn't necessarily hurt to follow the same naming convention idea as >> the standard, but sure, we >> don't have that problem, agreed. > It's not consistent in the standard: > - numeric_limits<T>::is_specialized > - std::chrono::system_clock::is_steady > - std::atomic<T>::is_always_lock_free > > And that's OK, because it would be a silly rule that said all boolean > constants should end in _v, it would just be noise.
But I didn't suggest such a rule, merely that if we are doing with a trait-like variable that shortcuts a ::value, then we could entertain using _v.
