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.