From: John Max Skaller (skaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-15 17:47:35
> I am. It's not about whether I'm prepared to learn new terminology or not. I
> was trying to say that I usually prefer code that is readable by non-experts
> over code that uses a specific terminology that is not widely understood.
I agree, but the issue isn't quite the same when the terminology
is the name of a function whose semantics will be specified
in an International Standard: users at least have an authoritative
reference to lookup what 'join' actually does. In that case,
using 'jargon' isn't so bad when it shortens the name.
As one might say on the committee: is this a show stopper?
If not, can we move on? Boost doesn't have a voting mechanism
to resolve this issue, WG21 does. Perhaps Beman can note
that some people object to the name 'join' when presenting
the library, the LWG can then pass this on with recommendations
to the full committee.
-- John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller_at_[hidden] 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850 New generation programming language Felix http://felix.sourceforge.net Literate Programming tool Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk