Robert Collins wrote: > On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 09:22, Max Bowsher wrote: > >>> PP doesn't evoke 'Memory compatible wrapper'. It doesn't even evoke >>> Wrapper. Or Adapter. >> >> RECTPP - a C++ version of RECT. > > If it was that, then we could change field, give it child classes (which > implies virtual destructors ...) We can't. It's *not* a C++ version of > RECT. It's a limited function wrapper. Does it need to be that limited? > Maybe not, but for now, if I proposed any changes, potentially large > amounts of Garys other code would have to change (beyond the search n > replace the class renaming will cause), and that would be unreasonable > of me. > >> If that's not enough to convince you, then how about: >> RECT<you suggest something to put here>. >> >> Maybe RECTWrapper > > Exactly.
Reviewing my suggestion, I don't like it any more. After all, is doesn't wrap - it inherits. Somehow RECTInheriter just doesn't feel quite right. :-) RECTX? (RECT, Extended) RECTPP? (RECT, Partially Polished) :-) If there is a word describing exactly what a RECTPP is, I don't know it. So why not just give it an abstract name? Then we can just say "RECTPP is a RECTPP". Or, call it RECTQR (RECT, Quirkily Retrofitted), if you like. Max.
