RE: [boost] Re: string algorithms review

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-26 04:31:08

OK - you have persuaded me that although 'trimmed' is nice for the trim version,
it is nasty for others.

But it is worth exploring names at this stage - they do matter.

Paul

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Pavol Droba
| Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 10:31 PM
| To: Boost mailing list
| Subject: Re: [boost] Re: string algorithms review
|
|
| On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 09:20:12PM +0100, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
| >
| >
| > | -----Original Message-----
| > | From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| > | [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Pavol Droba
| > | Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:31 PM
| > | To: Boost mailing list
| > | Subject: Re: [boost] Re: string algorithms review
| >
| > | > 2  The suffix should be _copy and _copyto.
| > |
| > | Why? Could you plese provide rationale for this.
| > |
| >
| > Because it is shorter and  if the code is trim_copyto(s) is reads
| as though the
| > 'to' means it goes to s.
|
| what about meaning 'trim' the 'copy' -> trim_copy
|
| > (Of course, a rational language would specify in, out, or in&out but I won't
| > stir that hornets nest again!)
| >
| > But actually I really rather like Rob Stewart's trimmed' suggestion.
| >
| > Both
| >
| >    std::string t(trimmed(s));
| >
| > or even if t already exists (poor but what novice and ex-C
| programmers may do)
| >
| > 	t = trimmed(s)
| >
| > seems to me to imply that nothing is done to s.
| >
| > But to_uppered(s) or uppered is not so nice, but still just OK?
| >
| > And what about concatentation t += trimmed(s);
| >
| > and addition string full_name = trimmed(forename) + substr(
| trimmed(surname); ?
| >
| > Since we already have protection against misuse,
| > this seems quite attractive to me.
| >
|
| I have some counterarguments.
|
| - It is possible to used _copy as a convention for every algorithm in
| the library.
| - for trim and trim_copy, it is obvious, that they are variant of the
| same algorithm.
|   It is not so obvious for trim and trimmed.
| - If we adopt the convention you are proposing, it could be quite chalenging
|   to makeup the names for algorithms like replace_first (
| ?first_replaced? ) or even worse,
|   replce_all_regex.
|   When names are concatenated from multiple words, adding a suffix,
| does not break anything,
|
| - This convention is backedup by STL, so people are used to it.
|
| Regards,
|
| Pavol
|
| _______________________________________________
| Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
|
|