
Boost : 
From: Reid Sweatman (reids_at_[hidden])
Date: 19990618 17:35:15
I know I'm a newbie here, but thought I'd toss my .02 Zorkmids into the hat.
I think some of the confusion over the argument naming schemes comes from
the fact that they're not derived from CS argumentnaming schemes, but from
the operator notation of mathematics. Unless someone with a fierce Ph.D. in
math cares to correct me, I believe that operator notation doesn't support
null domains, which is what having a "nonary" C++ function would amount to.
Hence, there's no name for it. Operator notation is intended to describe
ideas related to functions (in the mathematical sense), transforms,
mappings, etc. Note that I use all those words in their mathematical
contexts, in which in every case there is a domain which the operator maps
into a range. Here the domain can be of any dimensionality, except null
(even having only an identity element, or null kernel under the operations
implies a dimensionality of at least one).
Would it be out of line to suggest a naming scheme that *isn't* based on
operator notation? Maybe something that explicitly uses the word
"argument," or "parameter," or some abbreviation of something like that?
That would give you a simple, consistent, easyforanyonetounderstand
notation, with names like one_arg_function, two_arg_function, and so on. I
know they don't have the nifty complex mathematical sound of the other
suggestions, but being a mathematician myself, I'd call that a plus (which,
of course, is a two_arg_function <g>). Lucky for us that C++ doesn't
support more than one return value, or we'd have to factor the
dimensionality of the return values into the name as well <g>.
Anyway, as I said, my .02 Zorkmids (which, according to Michael Dornbush,
are now collectors' items worth around $65 apiece <g>).
> Original Message
> From: Nathan Myers [mailto:ncm_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 2:44 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: result of compose discussion
>
>
>
> > For the question of "nonary_function" "nullary_function",
> > "niladic_function", "voidary_function", ...
> > it seems we get more and more suggestions.
> > So, for the moment I stay with "nonary_function".
>
> "Nonary" is abominable, but should remain as a goad until somebody
> comes up with a good reason to favor one among the others. What's
> wrong with "nonary"? First, it implies nine arguments.
>
> Of the suggestions I have seen, niladic or nullary seem best.
>
> Nathan Myers
> ncm_at_[hidden]
>
>
> 
> 
> eGroups now offers FREE email newsletters!
> Women.com, RollingStone, Travelocity, and more...
> Signup Now! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/315
>
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
> http://www.egroups.com  Simplifying group communications
>
>
>
>

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com  Simplifying group communications
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk