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.