From: John E. Potter (jpotter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-10 07:26:01
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Lois Goldthwaite wrote:
> I've often thought it would add to the intuitive obviosity of this
> algorithm if it had been named copy_removing_if instead!
The smiley was there because the translation of that phrase is I
have done it before. I happened to have Accelerated C++ open to
a chapter where it was used when the original message arrived. It
is rather cryptic, but I hear that one can get used to it. There
is logic behind the names.
remove, remove_if, remove_copy, remove_copy_if
The pattern repeats for replace. Interesting that copy is not needed
since it is remove_copy_if(b, e, r, false<T>()) or transform(b, e, r,
identity<T>()). I don't see a way to get copy_backward though.
Minimalism can be confusing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk