On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:53, Neil Groves <neil@grovescomputing.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com>wrote:
Mathias Gaunard wrote:
I'm not sure an agreement was reached during review as to what naming to use for "lazy" range operations.
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 think I might have mentioned my opinion. Since I think lazy views should be the main mode of operation, I think they ideally should have the shortest name, "join". That happens to coincide with Joel's view from consistency with MPL/Fusion. The issue with this may be RangeEx-internal consistency. You may need to give different types of operations (mutating, lazy functions, lazy operator| ) different names. But it's a bike shed discussion: three keystrokes more or fewer doesn't make a whole lot of difference. I think everyone assumes you will come up with something sensible. On a more constructive note, I don't think the joint_view_iterator (or another name) that you'll need is in Boost yet. I do have one lying around (which takes a tuple of iterators) that I'd be happy to contribute. Just drop me an email. Cheers, Rogier