Re: [boost] [log] Comments

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Comments
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-16 12:04:46

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 02:13 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> > Steven Watanabe wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there a good reason that the same attr can't be both a formatter
> >> and a filter?
> >
> > If not, it would probably make things more readable to have
> > "attr_formatter" and "attr" anyway, though I'd prefer to see "attr"
> > spelled out in each case.
>
> formatters::attr_formatter looks too much for me. And it's attr for
> shortness. I think it's expansion is obvious enough.

Given code within the formatters namespace, having a using directive in force, or eliminating the "formatters" namespace as suggested elsewhere, the repetition to which you are objecting would be masked or eliminated.

When one sees "attr" in the documentation or code, it won't be confused with "attr_formatter," which is possible when both are named alike unless they are always namespace scoped.

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software      using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.