Re: [boost] array formal review

From: wb_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-06-25 14:59:03

May I respecfully add the following points of information to this (very
important!) naming thread:

  1)  The name "c_array" is used in Stroustrup's book (_The C++
      Programming Language, Special Edition_, pp. 496-7) for a container
      class very similar to this one.

  2)  The name "block" is used in Austern's book (_Generic Programming
      and the STL_, pp. 60-2) for yet another similar container class.
      Austern credits Andrew Koenig for suggesting this name.

If we wish to suggest, by the choice of name, that the Boost class is
similar in purpose to those found in the above, then I would recommend
we limit ourselves to the above two names as candidates.

On the other hand, if we wish to suggest that Boost's class differs
quite significantly from the container classes found in these two
(well-respected) published sources, then we ought eliminate both their
names from candidacy.

My own opinion is that we ought not to invent yet another name, because
the Boost version isn't really all that different.  Then, of the two
candidates above, I recommend we use "block" because the name "c_array"
is, to the ear, too easily mis-heard as "C array" (which is, of course,
exactly what it is intended to suggest).  I prefer to avoid the
prospective oral/aural ambiguity, hence my humble recommendation.

        - WEB

Beman Dawes <beman_at_[hidden]> wrote on Sun Jun 25 13:46:46 2000:

| I would like to second Tomasz Kowalczyk's comment:
|
|  >I have a comment about the naming of this class. I am afraid that
|  >"array" has potential to be used for other things than just a wrapper
|  >around C arrays. Why not to call it a "carray" so that everybody knows
|  >what it refers to, and so that long threads in clc++m about stealing
|  >names and introducing confusion can be avoided ?
|
| "array" is just too generic a name.  I prefer "c_array" to "carray", but
| the important thing is to pick a name that at least hints at what kind of
| array we are talking about.