From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-03 05:10:50
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:16:39AM +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> Dear all,
> John Torjo asks why don't rename the Range concepts empty() function to the more idiomatic and less embarrassing
> name is_empty()?
> My initial thoughts were if this could ceate more confusion, but I'm beginning to think John is right.
> So if people would cast some yes or no votes it would be great.
Hmm ... the function takes its argument by const-reference, so it's
"obvious" it doesn't empty the range if you've seen the function
declaration. (But anything "obvious" will fail to be obvious to
Although it would be nice if the STL had used is_empty() it's too late
to change that now, and Boost's web site does say:
The emphasis is on libraries which work well with the C++ Standard
I think consistency with the existing name is important.
-- "The tools we use have a profound (and devious!) influence on our thinking habits, and, therefore, on our thinking abilities." - Edsger Dijkstra
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk