[boost] Re: Re: Re: Formal review or Variant Library (Ed B.)

From: Ed Brey (brey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-19 16:30:27

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Ed Brey" <brey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> Unfortunately, that data point is of limited use, since Python has a
>> lot of names leaving something to be desired (generally those
>> borrowed from C and Unix).  When I was a Python newby, insetad of
>> complaining, I just got used to looking up functions in the docs to
>> be sure I knew what they did.
> 
> Are you kidding?  Python users (almost) never read docs!
> {sorry all you other Python users out there; it's just my impression}.

Nope.  I'm serious.  I use the ActiveState distribution, and since it's convenient to look up a module in the index, and since the documentation is nice and brief, I always give a quick glance through the docs on a module that is new to me before using it.  And in the case of some of the more cryptic modules, like shutil, I look up functions even after they're not so new to me, especially if it's been a while.

>> [Use of a member function instead of a free function.]
> 
> It's easy to make this case if you assume dependent variants are an
> edge case.

Let's assume that dependent variants are not an edge case.  Would you say that the advantages of tight binding for non-template cases and prettier syntax for dependent variants are each strong enough to justify a dual interface, i.e. free and member?

Interestingly, of the two, I'd say that member is most natural and free is pragmatic, working around the compiler's lack of omnicience.