[boost] Re: review request: container_traits

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-01 11:16:45

> > people can choose whatever they like. Some people might think it's more
> > intuitive to write
> >
> > container_traits<C>::iterator
> >
> > than
> >
> > container_iterator<C>::type.
>
>     The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
>
>     Beautiful is better than ugly.
>     Explicit is better than implicit.
>     Simple is better than complex.
>     Complex is better than complicated.
>     Flat is better than nested.
>     Sparse is better than dense.
>     Readability counts.
>     Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
>     Although practicality beats purity.
>     Errors should never pass silently.
>     Unless explicitly silenced.
>     In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
>     There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
>     Now is better than never.
>     Although never is often better than *right* now.
>     If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
>     If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
>     Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!

may I add a snip of The Zen of C++:

     There should always be more than one way to do it

:-)

Anyway, I don't feel strongly about it and will change the
docs/implementation soon.

cheers

Thorsten