On 8/15/12, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2012-08-15 07:29, Richard Guenther wrote: > > + typedef typename Element::Element_t Element_t; > > Can we use something less ugly than Element_t? > Such as > > typedef typename Element::T T; > > ? Given that this name is scoped anyway...
I've been finding the use of T as a typedef confusing. It sort of flies in the face of all existing convention. The C++ standard would use either element_type or value_type. I suggest a rename, but I'm guessing that folks don't want something as verbose as element_type. How about elemtype? Any objections to me changing it to that? -- Lawrence Crowl
