From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-05 08:29:00
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:16:39AM +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>John Torjo asks why don't rename the Range concepts empty() function to the more idiomatic and less embarrassing
>>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
> some people).
> 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
And how would range lib not work well with STL from this point of view?
> I think consistency with the existing name is important.
I'm all for consistency myself, but keeping up a bad standard, while
many experts say the name is wrong, is just perpetuating bad practice.
-- John Torjo Freelancer -- john_at_[hidden] Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal -- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all -- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ -- v1.3beta released - check out splitter/simple_viewer, a File Explorer/Viewer all in about 200 lines of code! Professional Logging Solution for FREE -- http://www.torjo.com/code/logging.zip (logging - C++) -- http://www.torjo.com/logview/ (viewing/filtering - Win32) -- http://www.torjo.com/logbreak/ (debugging - Win32)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk