Neil Groves wrote:
A small comment inviting new discussion on RangeEx naming is inline:
[...]
According to the initial naming convention RangeEx used, it would be called "joined" and not "join_view".
Sigh, yeah, I recall the review. I'll just hope the people involved will value precedence and consistency.
If there was something about the review that you did not like, could we please attend to it by finding useful actions? I'm more than happy to evaluate/accomodate everyone's input. There was not much discussion IIRC when I discussed using join_view, join, or joined. I am concerned that the tone of the comment indicates a broader dissatisfaction. I would be happy to discuss specific points and attempt to resolved any issues you may have.
I'm not eager to argue about naming. We can argue till death but still have a deadlock. Such are subjective issues and it's a matter of preference. Yet, above preference, there is also consistency and precedence. It's just a fact that MPL and Fusion came *before* RangeEx and it's also a fact that we have something in common: views. It's also a fact that STL came before. Much as I hate the name "find_if", for example, I value STL's precedence and I can't just replace Fusion's counterpart for something "better". And then of course, there's consistency -- with Boost -- MPL/Fusion calls it join (the function) and joint_view (the sequence/view). I fail to see any reason why RangeEx will have to break this consistency. Anyway, I consider this a bike-shed issue and so I leave it at that. Que Sera, Sera :-) Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net