Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Formal Review: Circular Buffer

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-06 15:40:58

At 09:04 AM 3/5/2004, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
 >One last thing:
 >
 >> > 8. maybe you should add const_pointer data() const
 >> ?
 >> It is not possible. data() is mutating operation.
 >> See
 >> the source code.
 >> ---------------
 >> ok. then maybe one should get more hints about this
 >> mutation (I did not have
 >> a clue), maybe like
 >> c.prepare_array();
 >> foo( &*c.begin() );
 >There are some words regarding iterator invalidation
 >in the method documentation.
 >---------
 >ok, I'm not super religious about it, but my line of thought goes like
 >this:
 >
 >if a programmer sees this kind of code:
 >
 >circular_buffer<T> cb;
 >...
 >foo( cb.data() );
 >
 >he would have to look at documentation to know what's going on (he could 
be
 >a maintenance programmer who have no
 >earlier knowlegde of circular buffer). data() is a very
 >innocent word and I doubt that people in general would think all iterator
 >were invalidated. I also doubt that they would think
 >it was a linear time operation. Now, that's why I think it might be
 >possible
 >to give programmer just a little more hint about
 >what might be going on by using a *verb* in the functions name, eg.
 >
 >compute_data();
 >prepare_data();
 >prepare_array();
 >linearize_data();
 >
 >It's probably good to get other's oppinion about this too.

FWIW, I agree. Particularly since data() in std::string is const. Verbs do 
a better job of indicating meaning.

--Beman