From: Eric Friedman (ebf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-24 00:55:54
The following excerpt is from a private conversation with Aleksey:
> > [Eric]
> > Any possibility that if_ will return in name to select_if? I find
> > select_if to be a superior name for the following reasons:
> > if_ is visually distracting; OTOH select_if is visually-similar to
> > apply_if.
> > if_ is a bad analogy to runtime C++. In runtime C++ the if keyword
> > invokes code, ?: operator selects a value. So if anything, apply_if
> > should be named if_, as it invokes a metafunction -- I don't think
> > anyone wants this, however, so I think if_ should give way to
> > select_if (and apply_if should remain as it is now).
> I suggest that you raise this issue on the list. I myself like the
> shortness of "if_", but I'll go with consensus here - given that there
> is one :).
So I am raising the issue to the list.
An additional advantage of the "select_if" name over "if_" is that the
#include "boost/mpl/[metafunction-name].hpp" format is preserved.
Keep in mind that Boost has favored clearness over curtness ;)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk