----- Original Message ----- From: "Neil Groves" <neil@grovescomputing.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx
Thorsten,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Thorsten Ottosen < thorsten.ottosen@dezide.com> wrote:
vicente.botet skrev:
As unique exist already, what about unique_view. With the _view suffix we
state clearly that the evaluation is lazy.
Just to make sure there is no confusion on this point, then the orignal _ed suffix was supposed to mean "lazy". That doesn't mean it is perfect naming scheme, of course.
I strongly prefer the _view suffix. I wish I had thought of it before the review!
-Thorsten
So is everyone happy if I: 1. Change the 'ed' adaptors to _view 2. name the operator | alternatives with the same name as the adaptor?
The _view suffix has been used by two very old functional libraries as the VTL, View Template Library (http://www.zib.de/weiser/vtl) and Views (http://www.zeta.org.au/~jon/STL/views/doc/views.html). Boost.Range shares a lot of with these libraries. I like this naming convention. It is OK from my side. Vicente