Dear Giovanni, On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Giovanni Piero Deretta <gpderetta@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Neil Groves <neil@grovescomputing.com> wrote:
Dear Sir,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Rogier van Dalen <rogiervd@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 13:28 +0100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Dear Developers and Users,
It's my pleasure to announce that the review of Neil Groves' RangeEx library starts today and lasts until March 3, 2009.
That's great news! I've much anticipated this library, since I'd hand-rolled similar components a long time ago. I hope to submit a formal review, but before I do, I hope to understand the motivation for the design better. I hope this is allowed within a formal review. This is related to my question at <http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2008/07/140514.php>.
I am not sure I understand the motivation for the operator| syntax. Why couldn't vec | boost::adaptors::reversed | boost::adaptors::unique be written boost::adaptors::unique (boost::adaptors::reversed (vec)) ? I think this contrast would be fairer than what the documentation currently has. Is there a reason why it is not possible to provide both syntaxes? The pipe syntax is nice, but sort of restricts operations to 1 range in, 1 range out. Relatedly:
In the adaptors section the preference for operator| is documented. It simply chains better in my opinion.
I do provide both alternatives, for example
boost::make_uniqued_range(rng) is equivalent to rng | uniqued
IMHO the make_... syntax for range adaptors is horrible (i don't even like the past tense, why not just unique?). But why use two different names in the first place? Why not make
I simply dislike lots of overloading particularly where the semantics are different. Perhaps the semantics aren't that different. I had considered creating a range adaptor to be highly different to applying an algorithm, perhaps I over-emphasised this distinction when making the decision. I like the make_XXX_range because I instantly recognise that this creates a range adaptor. However I personally strongly prefer the '|' syntax. I'm trying to give everyone what they want. I am reluctant to use exactly the same name, but I am open to change from make_XXX_range. It is of course absolutely trivial for anyone to provide exactly their own wrapper function to please their own taste.
'some_functor(range) ' eqivalent to 'range | some_functor'
(i would actually go for the syntax 'range | some_functor(_r)', where _r is a placeholder for the range; This is usefull for adaptors that actually have other parameters in addition to the range itself)
I would always prefer the '|' syntax to any normal function invocation however it is spelled. In my opinion, it combines much more elegantly.
-- gpd
Thanks for the comments, Neil Groves
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost