From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-26 06:12:58
David Abrahams wrote:
> I was hapy with bidirectional_iterator_operators, but
> "bidirectional_iteratible" doesn't work at all for me.
Apparently, '[...]_iterator_operators' names (that I like too) don't fit
well into the general naming convention used through the rest of the library
(that is documented in our "Summary of Template Semantics"; in particular,
item 2 of that section says: "The name of an operator class template
indicates the /concept/ that its target class will model").
> I'm not sure if "iteratible" is a word, but if it is, I think
> it would be spelled "iteratable". In any case, I'd like to
> hear from others about the choice of names. Jeremy?
IMO if you think about "[input,output,..]_iteratable" as a name of the
concept, it becomes an acceptable choice. At least I am ok with it. FWIW,
Google search on "iteratable" finds ~70 distinct pages where the word is
used, mostly in CS texts, and at least one seemed to talk about higher
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk