On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@google.com> wrote:
> If we were to follow C++ standard library conventions, we would call > it value_type. That would be my preference. However, if folks > want a shorter name, I'll live with that too. But as it stands, > the current name is very confusing. Yes, and there appears to be no good reason to let it stand. -- Gaby
