From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-11 06:49:47
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> > Why does the draft documentation feature a "mutating algorithms"
> > then?
> That's the basis of a conceptual disagreement between Aleksey and
> myself. There's obviously no such thing as a mutating algorithm at
> compile-time, but Aleksey thinks (I hope he won't mind the paraphrase)
> that using the term "mutating" helps people to understand algorithms
> which return a modified version of their input sequence. My feeling was
> that it just made things more confusing.
FWIW, I agree with you. "Mutating" algorithms are impossible in a pure
functional language. Pretending that they are will confuse both STL users
and FP users equally well.
> > There wasn't a fold() last time I looked. ;-)
> Well, Vesa's FP arguments did in fact have quite an impact.
MPL suffers from the usual syndrome (no offense meant.) People see what's
wrong with it, express their opinions, nothing changes for six months, then
suddenly everything is fixed. I guess we can't speed up evolution.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk