On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Peter Dimov wrote:
Douglas Paul Gregor wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Peter Dimov wrote:
But the question is why (and the name is boost::fs). Claiming the identifier 'fs' in the boost namespace isn't more evil than claiming the identifier 'ref' or 'type' or 'bind'... or 'function', if you will.
I'm not going to defend "type", because I'm not thrilled that it's there. As for the others, only "ref" is an abbreviation, but we're knocking something that's huge ("reference_wrapper", 17 characters) and is often used several times in one line of code down to 3 characters.
I think it's a fuzzy line in the sand, so all I really know is that I do like "ref" and don't like "fs" :)
Yes, is seems that it comes down to personal preference. Dave likes to say filesystem, and you don't like fs. Out of curiosity, do you like 'std'?
Yes, actually. Part of my weighting scheme has to do with how often I need to type it. With filesystem, for instance, I either use it very sparingly (and don't mind the typing), or I'm using it like mad and will go with an alias no matter what. With "std", I need it all the bloody time for everything, so it better be short. (Kind of like "ls" or "cd").
I believe that there is a (subjective) threshold that shouldn't be crossed, or the programmer just "goes unqualified". Now, it's well known that many programmers don't tolerate namespaces at all. Others, apparently, are content with longer namespace names if this aids clarity. But I somewhat suspect that the majority are like me, they'll keep using qualified names until the library offers them an excuse to cut corners. So I'd rather not give them that excuse.
I'm not against going unqualified in reasonably safe places, so it doesn't bother me quite as much. <stands up> My name is Doug Gregor, and I use using directives. <sits back down> I suspect we'll be arguing this for every longish name and shortish abbreviation that goes into Boost for a good, long time :) Doug