Re: [boost] Fomal review period for functional

From: Mark Rodgers (mark.rodgers_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-17 04:42:55

Jens,

Thanks for your very helpful comments.  I was beginning to worry 
that we were about to find out what happens if we have a review
and no-one had anything to say...

I'm working through your points and making pretty much all the
changes you suggest.  A couple of comments about your comments:

>I would add an explanatory note that libraries allowing LISP-
>like lambda-expressions with a more natural syntax are currently
>under development, but these may not work with certain popular
>compilers.

Yes, I definitely intend to do this, as suggested by Gary Powell
previously.  Do you or Gary have a preferred wording?

>General: Is there any boost preference which English language
>variation to use (US -ize vs. British -ise etc.)?

Slightly off topic, but ...

It is a common misconception that the British (and New Zealanders)
can't write -ize, and presumably that Americans never need -ise.
My dictionary (Concise Oxford) says:

  "The form -ize has been in use in English since the 16th c.; 
  it is widely used in American English, but it is not an
  Americanism.  The alternative spelling -ise (reflecting a 
  French influence) is in common use, and is obligatory in
  certain cases: (a) where it forms part of a larger word
  element, such as -mise (=sending) in compromise, and -prise
  (=taking) in surprise, and (b) in verbs corresponding to
  to a noun with -s- in the stem, such as advertise and 
  televise."

So yes, I'm certainly at liberty to use -ize in certain cases
(e.g., specialize), but in general I prefer -ise because I'm less 
likely to be wrong.  But since I'm sure Americans are equally
at liberty to use -ise, does anyone really care?

> Is there any reason why this file is called "index.htm", but the
> rest has the (IMHO proper) ".html" suffix?

Because I agree with you that ".html" is proper, but was under 
the (incorrect) impression that index.htm was required by Boost
standards.  A couple of other libraries (compose and dir_it) do
the same thing.

>For additional English beauty, try "If this typedef were not
>provided, ...".

Only someone who had learned English as a second language would
spot the need for the subjunctive! :-)  Most native speakers
wouldn't know what it was, and only use it sporadically.  You are
correct of course.

>In section "Argument Passing", "Accordingly, the negators in this
>library (mem_fun1_t and its variants)...".  It is news to
>me that "mem_fun1_t" is a negator.

It's certainly news to me too! :-)  I guess it must have been a
copy and paste error.

Thanks again.

Mark