From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-02 17:04:21
On Friday 02 August 2002 17:12, Beman Dawes wrote:
> Again, the function remove_all() is provided to meet the need for a
> function which does not throw an exception if the target doesn't exist.
> It seems to me people are advocating something that is already provided. Am
> I missing something?
IMHO this is a strong indication that the library interface might have
usability issues. FWIW I would have never looked at remove_all() if I were in
a search for a non-throwing remove. Names should play nice with programmers
expectations, at least if core functionality is concerned. Otherwise these
kind of complaints will not stop.
Just my 2c.
-- Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Witt Institut fuer Verkehrswesen, Eisenbahnbau und -betrieb, Universitaet Hannover voice: +49(0) 511 762 - 4273, fax: +49(0) 511 762-3001 http://www.ive.uni-hannover.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk