[boost] Re: algorithms namespace

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-18 18:43:22

Douglas Paul Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Douglas Paul Gregor wrote:
>> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But the question is why (and the name is boost::fs). Claiming the
>> >> identifier 'fs' in the boost namespace isn't more evil than claiming
>> >> the identifier 'ref' or 'type' or 'bind'... or 'function', if you
>> >> will.
>> >
>> > I'm not going to defend "type", because I'm not thrilled that it's there.
>> > As for the others, only "ref" is an abbreviation, but we're knocking
>> > something that's huge ("reference_wrapper", 17 characters) and is often
>> > used several times in one line of code down to 3 characters.
>> >
>> > I think it's a fuzzy line in the sand, so all I really know is that I do
>> > like "ref" and don't like "fs" :)
>>
>> Yes, is seems that it comes down to personal preference. Dave likes to say
>> filesystem, and you don't like fs. Out of curiosity, do you like 'std'?
>
> Yes, actually. Part of my weighting scheme has to do with how often I need
> to type it. With filesystem, for instance, I either use it very sparingly
> (and don't mind the typing), or I'm using it like mad and will go with an
> alias no matter what. With "std", I need it all the bloody time for
> everything, so it better be short. (Kind of like "ls" or "cd").

That's basically my philosophy.  Couple that with a belief that the
use of indcphrble abbrevs should be a conscious choice on each
programmer's part, and not forced upon them by cruel or lazy library
authors <wink>, and I think you can understand why I don't like
boost::algo or boost::fs by default.  If I could think of a better
alternative I might say the same about boost::mpl.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com