I ask to change the name of function is_ordered(). The "is_" prefix suggests that it is a boolean function which it is not. Also, there are other functions there with prefix "is_" and which are boolean functions, and this non-uniformity hurts the eye. I suggest the name "first_misordered".
On Oct 9, 2011, at 5:28 AM, Zoltán Tóth wrote:
I ask to change the name of function is_ordered(). The "is_" prefix suggests that it is a boolean function which it is not. Also, there are other functions there with prefix "is_" and which are boolean functions, and this non-uniformity hurts the eye. I suggest the name "first_misordered".
Another possible name is "first_out_of_order". I'm not sure I like it better, but maybe someone else does. Josh
On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Joshua Juran wrote:
On Oct 9, 2011, at 5:28 AM, Zoltán Tóth wrote:
I ask to change the name of function is_ordered(). The "is_" prefix suggests that it is a boolean function which it is not. Also, there are other functions there with prefix "is_" and which are boolean functions, and this non-uniformity hurts the eye. I suggest the name "first_misordered".
Another possible name is "first_out_of_order". I'm not sure I like it better, but maybe someone else does.
I think the consensus is that if we change the name, it should be changed to "is_sorted_until", which is what the C++11 standard uses. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Joshua Juran wrote:
On Oct 9, 2011, at 5:28 AM, Zoltán Tóth wrote:
I ask to change the name of function is_ordered(). The "is_" prefix suggests that it is a boolean function which it is not. Also, there are other functions there with prefix "is_" and which are boolean functions, and this non-uniformity hurts the eye. I suggest the name "first_misordered".
Another possible name is "first_out_of_order". I'm not sure I like it better, but maybe someone else does.
I think the consensus is that if we change the name, it should be changed to "is_sorted_until", which is what the C++11 standard uses.
Yes, as it was discussed during Boost.Algorithm review, from the C++11 standard: // 25.4.1, sorting: template<class ForwardIterator> bool is_sorted(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last); template<class ForwardIterator, class Compare> bool is_sorted(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last, Compare comp); template<class ForwardIterator> ForwardIterator is_sorted_until(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last); template<class ForwardIterator, class Compare> ForwardIterator is_sorted_until(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last, Compare comp); So it would be best if this is_ordered is renamed to is_sorted_until. To model C++11, it might make sense to also provide the version without the comparison predicate (which uses operator< by default) and the is_sorted boolean functions which simply return is_sorted_until(...) == last. From the C++11 standard: 25.4.1.5 is_sorted [is.sorted] template<class ForwardIterator> bool is_sorted(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last); 1 Returns: is_sorted_until(first, last) == last template<class ForwardIterator, class Compare> bool is_sorted(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last, Compare comp); 2 Returns: is_sorted_until(first, last, comp) == last template<class ForwardIterator> ForwardIterator is_sorted_until(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last); template<class ForwardIterator, class Compare> ForwardIterator is_sorted_until(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last, Compare comp); 3 Returns: If distance(first, last) < 2, returns last. Otherwise, returns the last iterator i in [first,last] for which the range [first,i) is sorted. 4 Complexity: Linear. --Lorenzo
participants (4)
-
Joshua Juran -
Lorenzo Caminiti -
Marshall Clow -
Zoltán Tóth