Subject: Re: [boost] Range notation grammar
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-29 08:31:21
on Thu Jun 28 2012, Neil Groves <neil-AT-grovescomputing.com> wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
Right. It's just a question of syntactic and linguistic/grammatical
"noise." Mostly the latter.
> I don't recall your input during the review on this matter.
I may not have had any. Or I may have held the opposite opinion then :-)
> 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;
That was my thought.
> 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!
Kindly abnegate all asservations of insufficient perspicacity.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk