Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx

Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-25 18:12:05

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neil Groves" <neil_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx

> 
> Thorsten,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Thorsten Ottosen <
> thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> vicente.botet skrev:
>>
>>  As unique exist already, what about unique_view. With the _view suffix we
>>> state clearly that the evaluation is lazy.
>>>
>>>
>> Just to make sure there is no confusion on this point, then the orignal _ed
>> suffix was supposed to mean "lazy". That doesn't mean it is perfect naming
>> scheme, of course.
>>
> 
> I strongly prefer the _view suffix. I wish I had thought of it before the
> review!
> 
> 
>>
>> -Thorsten
>>
> 
> So is everyone happy if I:
> 1. Change the 'ed' adaptors to _view
> 2. name the operator | alternatives with the same name as the adaptor?

The _view suffix has been used by two very old functional libraries as the VTL, View Template Library (http://www.zib.de/weiser/vtl) and Views (http://www.zeta.org.au/~jon/STL/views/doc/views.html). Boost.Range shares a lot of with these libraries.
I like this naming convention. It is OK from my side.

Vicente