Before 1.43.0, range_ex had boost::make_reversed_range. In 1.43.0, it seems to have been renamed to boost::adaptors::reverse. This is unfortunate, as there is also a boost::reverse function that means something different.
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2@gmail.com> wrote:
Before 1.43.0, range_ex had boost::make_reversed_range. In 1.43.0, it seems to have been renamed to boost::adaptors::reverse.
This is unfortunate, as there is also a boost::reverse function that means something different.
The change was in response to review feedback. There were a large number of people that strongly believe that make_XXX_range was too long and the distinction was unnecessary. I pushed back quite hard with the same rationale as you just provided, but actually I think the feedback was good. I have been using the new version with the shorter name and it the source code reads better. I typically do rng | adaptors::reversed. The boost::adaptors::reverse(rng) seems pretty clear too.
I hope this change doesn't upset anyone too much. I have tried hard to respond constructively to the naming arguments. Regards, Neil Groves
Neil Groves wrote:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2@gmail.com> wrote:
Before 1.43.0, range_ex had boost::make_reversed_range. In 1.43.0, it seems to have been renamed to boost::adaptors::reverse.
This is unfortunate, as there is also a boost::reverse function that means something different.
The change was in response to review feedback. There were a large number of people that strongly believe that make_XXX_range was too long and the distinction was unnecessary. I pushed back quite hard with the same rationale as you just provided, but actually I think the feedback was good. I have been using the new version with the shorter name and it the source code reads better. I typically do rng | adaptors::reversed. The boost::adaptors::reverse(rng) seems pretty clear too.
I hope this change doesn't upset anyone too much. I have tried hard to respond constructively to the naming arguments.
Regards, Neil Groves
I'm not using using. I just find this situation a bit confusing. I think it's not obvious that boost::reverse has something to do with range, nor what boost::adaptors is. IMO, putting all of this in boost::range namespace would make it more obvious where to find out what these do. Consider the naive reader of my code.
Le 06/05/2010 08:13, Neil Groves a écrit :
The change was in response to review feedback. There were a large number of people that strongly believe that make_XXX_range was too long and the distinction was unnecessary. I pushed back quite hard with the same rationale as you just provided, but actually I think the feedback was good. I have been using the new version with the shorter name and it the source code reads better. I typically do rng | adaptors::reversed. The boost::adaptors::reverse(rng) seems pretty clear too.
Out of curiosity, couldn't it have been the same name for both? rng | boost::adaptors::reversed boost::adaptors::reversed(rng) having the same behaviour. Or would that have runtime overhead? Didn't really try to see what kind of code would be needed.
I hope this change doesn't upset anyone too much. I have tried hard to respond constructively to the naming arguments.
I myself am quite happy with short names, because I like terse code.
Neal Becker skrev:
Before 1.43.0, range_ex had boost::make_reversed_range. In 1.43.0, it seems to have been renamed to boost::adaptors::reverse.
This is unfortunate, as there is also a boost::reverse function that means something different.
stop using using namespace foo::bar; :-) Seriously, people really need to qualify their function calls. -Thorsten
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto@cs.aau.dk> wrote:
stop using
using namespace foo::bar;
:-)
Seriously, people really need to qualify their function calls.
This is/should be a C++ coding guideline. Item 13 from http://bulldozer00.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/project-specific-coding-guidelin... reads Minimize “using” directives, liberally employ “using” declarations to keep verbosity low. Cheers, Rob.
Robert Jones skrev:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto@cs.aau.dk> wrote:
stop using
using namespace foo::bar;
:-)
Seriously, people really need to qualify their function calls.
This is/should be a C++ coding guideline. Item 13 from
http://bulldozer00.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/project-specific-coding-guidelin...
reads
Minimize “using” directives, liberally employ “using” declarations to keep verbosity low.
I don't agree with the liberal use of using declarations. Namespace aliases are much better IMO. -Thorsten
participants (5)
-
Mathias Gaunard -
Neal Becker -
Neil Groves -
Robert Jones -
Thorsten Ottosen