Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [Hana] Formal review for Hana next week (June 10th)

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [Hana] Formal review for Hana next week (June 10th)
From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-17 10:35:12

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On 5 Jun 2015 at 16:57, Glen Fernandes wrote:
>
> > You are strongly encouraged to also provide additional information:
> > - What is your evaluation of the library's:
> >   * Design
>
> There is a still a bit to go to match STL naming conventions, though
> it has improved enormously over before. For example, the STL uses
> empty(), not is_empty(). is_empty() in the STL means something
> different.
>
> I'd also *hugely* prefer if Hana matched, name for name, the name
> choices in Ranges v3. For example, it's group() in Hana, but
> group_by() in Ranges v3. That would lessen the cognitive load for
> people using both together - which I suspect in the longer term will
> be many if not most. It also would increase the chances of Hana
> entering the standard C++ library as a compile-time version of
> Ranges.
>

+1

Zach