[hyh1048576]

I agree.

But "min(-, constant_x)" should be thought of as "at most constant_x" and similarly for max. Maybe there's a way to make it more expressive.

[ncallaway]

I think your "at most" language is pretty expressive. You could do that as an alias for `min` and `max`

I think `at_most(at_least(num, lower_bound), upper_bound)` is much easier to understand instantly than `min(max(...))`.

I'm tempted to make these aliases myself in some of my development actually. I find a pretty big conceptual difference between "I want to find the minimum point in this data", and "I want to restrict the range of this number" that giving them different names will probably help the readability of my code.

(Of course, for `min(max(...))` I usually write a `clamp()` function to hide that for me, but someones I want to only clamp in one direction)

[dmurray]

> (Of course, for `min(max(...))` I usually write a `clamp()` function to hide that for me, but someones I want to only clamp in one direction)

You could make clamp work in only one direction too. clamp(number, None, upper_bound) or the idiomatic equivalent in your language of choice seems pretty readable.