[boost] Re: result of compose discussion

From: Andy Glew (glew_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-06-21 12:42:12

>These names are more "fun"<g>, but I'm unconvinced that they're better. The
>other ones parse like real english.

When I have defined similar libraries in other programming languages,
I have been able to say

    '0ary function'
    '1ary function'
    '2ary function'

etc. - but this was in languages that allow arbitrary characters to be in
names, and are not limited to alphanumeric strings like Algol derived languages
such as C++. (The above are actual names.)

I would be tempted to say
    
    _0ary_function
    _1ary_function

but I think that leading underscores are discouraged by the C++ standard.

I kept trying miscellaneous alphanumeric prefixes, such as

    n_1_ary_function
    n_2_ary_function

but this seems clumsy.

However, as for the clumsiness of the postfix form not being "English-like"

    function_1_arg
    function_2_arg

etc., may I remind you that, if this library is successfull, many non-English speakers
will use it? Spelling numbers is silly when digits are universally understood.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications