Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx

Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx
From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-25 13:06:43

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Thorsten Ottosen
<thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Neil Groves skrev:
>>
>> Dear Giovanni,
>
>>>> I do provide both alternatives, for example
>>>>
>>>> boost::make_uniqued_range(rng) is equivalent to rng | uniqued
>>>>
>>> IMHO the make_... syntax for range adaptors is horrible (i don't even
>>> like the past tense, why not just unique?).
>>> But why use two different names in the first place? Why not make
>>>
>>
>> I simply dislike lots of overloading particularly where the semantics are
>> different. Perhaps the semantics aren't that different.
>
> There are very different. The past tense is used for adaptors that
> has O(1) complexity and merely wraps the range's iterators in a new type
> of iterators.
>
> An algorithm like
>
>  boost::unique(-)
>
> really modifies the range, | boost::adaptors::uniqued, does not.
>

Completely agree, unque (as in std::unique) and uniqued are two
different functions and should be named differently. On the other hand
uniqued and make_uniqued_range are the same thing and should have the
same name. I just don't like either 'uniqued' or 'make_uniqued_range'.

I think that the correct name for 'uniqued' should be 'unique' and the
name for the std derived 'unique' should be 'unique_inplace', but I
guess this would confuse people.

-- 
gpd