From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-03 01:21:36
Pavol Droba wrote:
> Well, it depends on what you define as 'de-facto' standard.
> I think that both names are equaly good.
> A quick 2-minute search gives me few example in favor of trim_left:
> - Microsoft - All libraries provieded by microsoft MFC, ATL, .Net, use
> *Left versions
> - Symbian API - has TrimLeft
> - Probably not very serious, but simple google comparison give following
> "trimhead OR trimhead" : 1,510 results
> "trim_left OR trimleft" : 40,400 results
> I don't have much time to look elsewhere, feel free to supply
I don't have any counterexamples. These examples you supplied are
exactly what I meant when I said it's "de-facto standard".
> Before considering your proposal, I would really need to see
> better argument then your personal opinion, since changing a name
> of a function that is already in use for some time is quite serious
Just my opinion? Strings do not know how they are going to be printed -
Left-to-right, right-to-left, top-to-bottom, in diagonal, or in circles.
String objects don't have a 'right' or a 'left', only 'head' and 'tail',
and that's not just my opinion, that's a fact. All the rest of your
functions correctly use head/tail naming, instead of left/right.
What is open for discussion is whether to change the name of a function
already in use. I agree that it's a serious issue. Perhaps both should
be supplied for now, with the right/left gradually deprecated. Or maybe
never deprecated and both live together happily ever after. I'm not
sure. The important thing is that if you propose it for TR2, I think
that it should be head/tail - to be consistent with the rest of the
library, and for the noble cause of being correct.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk