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.
