Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Range notation grammar
From: Neil Groves (neil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-28 09:48:12

On 28/06/12 13:06, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> This ship has undoubtedly sailed, but I'd like to register my
> displeasure with names like "uniqued," "taken," and "strided" et. al.
> The effect (subjectively of course) is to take a beautiful, minimal
> abstract notation that reflects a common practice (seriously, it's
> "grep," which is a verb, not "grepped") and mess it up with
> unconventional and awkward linguistic insurance against
> misunderstanding.
> this-has-been-a-test-of-the-emergency-nattering-system-ly y'rs,

This came up for discussion during the review of Boost.RangeEx.
Ultimately the majority preferred the naming and syntax we currently
have. While acknowledging the importance of finding clear names that
identify our abstractions, the choices here are both equal in this
respect. To my estimation there is no impact on external quality factors
and therefore while there will be strong opinions the outcome of this
debate does not appreciably affect the quality of the library. Both
naming conventions are unlikely to create confusion. I don't recall your
input during the review on this matter.

There are clearly some adjustments that can be made:
1. I could add the non-'ed' suffixed versions in a manner that minimizes
backward compatibility issues;
2. We could revisit the idea of having both the function and pipe forms;
3. We could provide a new namespace with new names.

I am very open to changing these especially since I believe we can do
this without negatively impacting my treasured early adopters.

Your displeasure troubles me. I am sure you have some ideas of actions
you would like taken to alleviate the displeasure. Would you mind being
a little more explicit about what those might be. Please remember that
I'm of limited intellect, please use small words!

Neil Groves

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at