Re: [boost] [GSoC] [Boost.Hana] Formal review request

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] [Boost.Hana] Formal review request
From: Mostafa (mostafa_working_away_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-07-30 17:32:57

On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:19:44 -0700, Louis Dionne <ldionne.2_at_[hidden]>  
wrote:

> Paul A. Bristow <pbristow <at> hetp.u-net.com> writes:
[snip]
>> And, for me, the names of functions are enough to condemn the library as
>> unacceptable for Boost.
>
> I have reasons to be uncomfortable with changing names in the library:
>
>   - While names are inconsistent with the usual C++, they are consistent
>     inside the library. Changing one name can break this consistency if
>     I'm not careful. Further, there are names which just don't have a
>     C++-friendly name, so I can't hope to change _all_ the names. We'll
>     have to deal with either 100% FP names or 50% C++ / 50% FP, but
>     100% C++ just can't be done.
>
>   - Some, C++ names imply some kind of mutation of the structure. Since  
> Hana
>     does not do any mutation, I must be careful not to choose a name that
>     suggests something that's not the reality.

If you haven't/aren't already doing so, you can explicitly document:
1) That this is an FP library.
2) Why it is so and how this impacts the naming and design. Explicitly,  
why a non-FP approach would make for a sub-par library.
3) When any unfamiliar (to C++ programmers) names are first introduced  
provide (the approximate?) C++ mapping.

A part of the documentation may just be about educating a FP-illiterate  
audience. It would also be help if some of the C++14 concepts were  
explained, or in the least their use highlighted with appropriate links to  
references.

One last thought, as Joe-everyday programmer why should I care about this  
library? What does it allow me to do (or do easier) that I wasn't able to  
do before?

My thoughts,

Mostafa