[cfe-dev] Any interest in renaming PLACEHOLDER_TYPE ?

[Faisal Vali]

Some more bike-shedding ...

standin_type

fill_in_type

replacement_type

surrogate_type

makeshift_type

unformed_type

premature_type

developing_type

immature_type

maturing_type

unbaked_type

unfinished_type

eventual_type

evolving_type

potential_type

prospective_type

impending_type

dummy_type

 unborn_type

 shadow_type

 phantom_type

hamlet_type (type to be or not to be ;)


Faisal Vali



On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Faisal Vali <faisalv at gmail.com> wrote:

> To start the bike-shedding: unresolved_type?
>
>
>
> Faisal Vali
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote:
>
>> Seems like a reasonable idea; what do you suggest as an alternative?
>> FWIW, I've been using "undeduced type" to mean "type that contains a
>> placeholder type".
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:00 AM, Faisal Vali <faisalv at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The core portion of the C++ standard denotes a "placeholder type"
>>> differently from its use in Clang.  Since clang tends to do a nice job of
>>> mapping most constructs/notions from the standard into intuitive code -
>>> this could stand out as potentially confusing ...
>>>
>>> I know this is probably very low priority, but is there any interest in
>>> renaming PLACEHOLDER_TYPE (and the related functions), or is it too late?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Faisal Vali
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130505/f5583c5c/attachment.html>