Boost logo

Boost :

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
> results:
> "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
> counterexamples.

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
> issue.

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at