I think the Type suffix is not needed, cause a template - erm - generics parameter in C# has to be a type anyway.  So the Type suffix should be dropped completly (or at least abbreviated to a T suffix or prefix, e.g. TKey, ValueT) :

<br>

<br>foreach (Pair&lt;Key,Value&gt; pair in tree.EnumerateBetweenReversed(new Pair&lt;Key,Value&gt;(first, default(Value)), new Pair&lt;Key,Value&gt;(last, default(Value)))) ..

<br>

<br>From pre GC times, i try to avoid having more than one &quot;new&quot; per statement :

<br>

<br>Pair &lt;Key,Value&gt; firstPair = new Pair&lt;Key,Value&gt; (first, default (Value));

<br>Pair &lt;Key,Value&gt; lastPair = new Pair&lt;Key,Value&gt; (last, default (Value));

<br>foreach (Pair&lt;Key,Value&gt; pair in tree.EnumerateBetweenReversed (firstPair, lastPair)) ..

<br>

<br>.. which seems to be quite readable even at 2 am .. ;-P

<br>.. and it avoids a paranthesis overflow (aka lisp exception) in my poor 3 braincells ..

<br>

<br>Do we have some C++ typedef equivalent in C#, e.g. using with class scope ? :

<br>

<br>using Pair&lt;Key,Value&gt; = KeyValPair;

<br>

<br>KeyValPair firstPair = new KeyValPair (first, default (Value));

<br>KeyValPair lastPair = new KeyValPair (last, default (Value));

<br>foreach (KeyValPair pair in tree.EnumerateBetweenReversed (firstPair, lastPair)) ..

We've debated the issue around the office since we got the beta.  I know that K, V, and T are easier to type when developing the generic class, but I get a really uneasy feeling when using them.  For the sake of clarity, I don't even like to abbreviate local variable names or parameter names to private methods. And Generic type parameters are public, so I think longer names are in order.

<br>

<br>But I think that the new VisualStudio presents the solution to the long typing problem: Refactoring.  Just use K, V, and T during the development of your class, and change them to KeyType, ValueType and ElementType (or whatever) when you're nearing completion on your class.

<br>

<br>As for whether KeyType, KeyT, TKey, or KEY is the best naming convention, I can't say for sure yet.  As much as I normally hate anything in all capital letters, it seems that using KEY, VALUE, and ELEMENT is a good way to make the type stand off from other names without resorting to the redundant practice of appending &quot;Type&quot; to the end.

<br>

<br>I'd like to see the CLS-guidelines for class library development mention the best naming convention, but I doubt that will happen until Generics are CLS-compliant.

Peter: I don't see how this arises.  You used the example of:

<br>

<br>foreach (Pair&lt;KeyType,ValueType&gt; pair in tree.EnumerateBetweenReversed(new Pair&lt;KeyType,ValueType&gt;(first, default(ValueType)), new Pair&lt;KeyType,ValueType&gt;(last, default(ValueType))))

<br>

<br>

<br>But you would never write that.  You would, instead write:

<br>

<br>foreach (Pair&lt;int,string&gt; pair in tree.EnumerateBetweenReversed(new Pair&lt;int,string&gt;(first, null), new Pair&lt;int,string&gt;(last, string)))

<br>

<br>i.e. you would use the generic in it's instantiated form.

<br>

<br>Also, I'm really worried about

<br>

<br>EnumerateBetweenReversed

<br>

<br>Why not have a flexible system that enabled that neavior in the following manner:

<br>

<br>tree.SubView(first,last).Reverse.GetEnumerator()

<br>???

<br>

<br>Have small simple operations, not large monolithic ones that don't tend to be useful.

<br>

<br>SubView on a tree is quiet valuable.  Reverse is quite valuable, and of course you'd have GetEnumerator.  

<br>

<br>So with those simple operations you can build up the full operation instead of needing a specific method to do it for you.

Cyrus:

<br>

<br>1) This code is within a generic class with KeyType and ValueType parameters. It is then using a different generic class via the &quot;tree&quot; variable. It's not worth going into the details of this code; it's just an example.

<br>

<br>2) I agree with you about splitting sub-ranges and reversing into separate, composable operations. That's the better design.