From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-03 09:09:57
Dave Harris wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <d4j89a$cd7$1_at_[hidden]>
> gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden] (Gennadiy Rozental) wrote (abridged):
> By the way, is there a rationale for the name? I'd have expected
> BOOST_FOR_EACH, with a word separator between FOR and EACH because, well
> they are separate words. This also matches the precedent of std::for_each.
> Word separators are especially important for names that are all in
> Is there a compelling reason to omit the second underline?
I don't think there's a /compelling/ reason, but here's my thought process:
* This isn't an algorithm, so I don't want to evoke std::for_each.
* It's like a new keyword, and some other languages have "foreach" as a
Anyway, I'm not married to the name, and I'd gladly change it if people
preferred to type an extra underscore. :-)
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk