Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: 2020 C++ Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 10:44:15 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 15 Message-ID: <8636ia9qts.fsf@mailhub.linuxsc.com> References: <86lfw645ob.fsf@mailhub.linuxsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ddd52e898386accec42eaf10bcb5b758"; logging-data="20408"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jCM6AnQw4r21sGFMbB2kWzpt20HiMBzU=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:lcb/Htfm2wW1rAEu9pDQH3l0VpU= sha1:Z8Km2lNXGz8QQhQAx/gDza3FH0I= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:67500 Fran writes: > On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 09:31:00 -0700, Tim Rentsch > wrote: > >> A name I am starting to warm up to is "property". It fits with >> lots of the examples on the cppreference page: the "Hashable" >> property, the "Incrementable" property, the "Addable" property, >> etc. > > Those words sound like "capabilities" to me, which seems appropriate > to the suffix "...able" on those names. Despite how the words might sound, "capability" is not a good fit for a C++ concept, which supplies nothing in the way of implementation.