Eric Lemings wrote:
[...]
If we are proposing this pattern as a naming convention for variadic template parameters, then I would find that acceptable.
As I said in the VOTE post: "...the proposed naming convention to follow unless more specific names are appropriate" When it's known that all the types model the same concept, using the name of the concept instead of the generic TypeT certainly sounds like a good idea. That's also why we have template parameters named InputIter[ator] and similar in the existing code base rather than just TypeT and TypeU everywhere. That said, I hope not to get too distracted by a discussion of hypothetical cases. The point of this vote is to [re]establish consistency in areas where newly added code has started to diverge. If we find in the future that the convention doesn't adequately cover some new cases we can certainly revisit it and tighten things up to address the cases we missed this time. Martin
