Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:16:39AM +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Dear all,
John Torjo asks why don't rename the Range concepts empty() function to the more idiomatic and less embarrassing name is_empty()?
My initial thoughts were if this could ceate more confusion, but I'm beginning to think John is right.
So if people would cast some yes or no votes it would be great.
Hmm ... the function takes its argument by const-reference, so it's "obvious" it doesn't empty the range if you've seen the function declaration. (But anything "obvious" will fail to be obvious to some people).
Although it would be nice if the STL had used is_empty() it's too late to change that now, and Boost's web site does say:
The emphasis is on libraries which work well with the C++ Standard Library.
And how would range lib not work well with STL from this point of view?
I think consistency with the existing name is important.
I'm all for consistency myself, but keeping up a bad standard, while many experts say the name is wrong, is just perpetuating bad practice. Best, John -- John Torjo Freelancer -- john@torjo.com Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal -- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all -- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ -- v1.3beta released - check out splitter/simple_viewer, a File Explorer/Viewer all in about 200 lines of code! Professional Logging Solution for FREE -- http://www.torjo.com/code/logging.zip (logging - C++) -- http://www.torjo.com/logview/ (viewing/filtering - Win32) -- http://www.torjo.com/logbreak/ (debugging - Win32)