From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-09 12:46:23
From: Florian Stegner <FlSt_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> >From: FlSt_at_[hidden]
> >"n_m_of" uses anti-alphabetical ordering of the letters. That
> >rather suggests the template argument order of maximum then
> >minimum. Perhaps changing to "x_y_of" or "a_z_of" would be
> Hmm... i,j,k are typical letters for indexes.. After that i_of and
> i_j_of are good choices.
Not all ranges are random access and we're not specifying two
indices. We're instead specifying a maximum and minimum count.
I rather liked the "subrange" or "subset" names that Matthew Vogt
suggested (though he later recanted his suggestion of
"subrange"). Unfortunately, those don't suggest the min/max
It occurs to me that most of these names are suggestive of
creating a subrange ("i_j_of" suggests the i'th through j'th
values in the range, for example) which then participates in the
comparison. That, of course, isn't what happens. Instead, we
need to indicate that between the minimum and maximum number of
elements, inclusive, satisfy the predicate.
As Matthew mentioned, the between(1, 2).items_of(a) spelling is
clear, but I find it rather long compared to subrange_of<1,2>(a)
or n_m_of<1,2>. Besides, we still need a name for the resulting
type that users might need to put in a variable.
In my library, there are these correspondences (Florian has a
different set of names):
Thus, you could write:
typedef std::set<int> range_type;
// populate r;
all_values<range_type> const all(all_of(r));
What about n_m_of?
n_m_values<range_type> const some(between(3, 5).items_of(r));
I picked "some" as the variable name. Would "some_of" work?
some_values<range_type> const some(some_of(3, 5, r));
some_values<range_type> const some(between(3, 5).items_of(r));
"exactly" has also been suggested
n_values<range_type> const n(exactly(3).items_of(r));
as an alternative to
n_values<range_type> const n(n_of(3, r));
Should that actually return a "some_values?"
some_values<range_type> const n(exactly(3).items_of(r));
If we use "some_values" do we need "n_of" or "n_m_of?" They're
shorter, but certainly not as clear. ("all," "none," and "one"
provide efficiency, so I plan to keep them.)
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk