Re: Refactoring progress report

From: David Abrahams (gclbb-jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-13 06:47:59

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> - Throughout these three modules and BBv2 in general there is much
>> inconsistency in terminology and naming. The Dynamic Type Checking
>> proposal above will allow us to write clearer code. Some
>> refactoring will re-group functions in a more meaningful way and
>> re-name them. For example, to convert a property-list to a
>> property-path you call "property.as-path", but to do the opposite,
>> you call "feature.split"; these functions should be in the same
>> module and named in a way that expresses their complementary nature.
>
> They are not complimentaty!
>
> [ feature.split [ property.as-path $(p) ] ] != $(p) 
>
> "as-path" produces as compact representation of property set as possible. For 
> example, if you have "debug" and "<optimization>off" in property set, then 
> only "debug" will show up in "path", because it already contains the second 
> property. This means that if you decide to rename 'as-path' you must be 
> carefull about the name.

Good point; I should have known that since I wrote property.as-path!

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com