Hello All, Boost.Fit is a function utility library, however, the name currently doesn't have anything with this. I originally chose the name because it started with F(for function) and it was short and sounded nice. However, there could be some names(or abbreviations) that more adequately describe the library. Here are some alternatives that are short: - Boost.FP - Boost.FPL - Boost.Fun - Boost.FN Of course, I prefer the Boost.FN name. Names like Boost.FP or Boost.FPL could imply that it provides full functional constructs whereas Boost.Fit does not and is mainly focused on functions. Either way, this is something reviewers could consider as they review the library as I am not strongly tied to the name Boost.Fit. Thanks, Paul
On March 2, 2016 9:48:20 AM EST, paul Fultz <pfultz2@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello All,
Boost.Fit is a function utility library, however, the name currently doesn't have anything with this. I originally chose the name because it started with F(for function) and it was short and sounded nice. However, there could be some names(or abbreviations) that more adequately describe the library. Here are some alternatives that are short:
- Boost.FP - Boost.FPL - Boost.Fun - Boost.FN
Of course, I prefer the Boost.FN name.
I'm not sure what the "N" in "FN" is, so I don't see that as a good choice.
Names like Boost.FP or Boost.FPL could imply that it provides full functional constructs whereas Boost.Fit does not and is mainly focused on functions.
I agree that those are not good. Boost.Fun would be a fun name and arguably fits (pun intended). Boost.Futil :-) The name doesn't actually need to be short, so Boost.Function Utilities would be fine. The corresponding namespace name would be long, too, but namespace aliases, using directives, and using declarations can mitigate that. ___ Rob (Sent from my portable computation engine)
I'm not sure what the "N" in "FN" is, so I don't see that as a good choice.
A lot of times people abbreviate function as fn.
Names like Boost.FP or Boost.FPL could imply that it provides full functional constructs whereas Boost.Fit does not and is mainly focused on functions.
I agree that those are not good.
Boost.Fun would be a fun name and arguably fits (pun intended).
True.
Boost.Futil :-)
The name doesn't actually need to be short, so Boost.Function Utilities would be fine. The corresponding namespace name would be long, too, but namespace aliases, using directives, and using declarations can mitigate that.
However, there is not an easy way alias the macros. So `BOOST_FIT_STATIC_LAMBDA_FUNCTION` would become `BOOST_FUNCTION_UTILITIES_STATIC_LAMBDA_FUNCTION`, which is getting too long. I could support ZLang[1] to allow the user to namespace macros, however, I don't think that is widely used. Alternatively, I wonder if its possible to use FunctionUtilities as the library name, but use 'fu' as the namespace name. Paul [1]: https://github.com/pfultz2/ZLang
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Paul Fultz II <pfultz2@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm not sure what the "N" in "FN" is, so I don't see that as a good choice.
A lot of times people abbreviate function as fn.
I do.
Boost.Fun would be a fun name and arguably fits (pun intended).
True.
I like this, or futils, but I can be a bit terse. ;) Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Paul Fultz II Sent: 02 March 2016 17:10 To: Boost devel archive Cc: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Alternative names to Boost.Fit Alternatively, I wonder if its possible to use FunctionUtilities as the library name, but use 'fu' as the namespace name.
I don't think that there is any real need to make the Boost library name the same as the namespace name. I believe the library name should be description - clear not curt (and not cute either ;-). Nor is there any need to make the namespace name too short IMO. If code has lots of repeated references to the namespace (unlikely?) then a using funcutil::some_fun; or even using namespace funcutil; within local scope (not global scope of course). So I'd suggest Boost.FunctionUtilities and namespace funcutil; But it's your call (until you get shouted down ;-) Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
On 3/2/2016 12:46 PM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Paul Fultz II Sent: 02 March 2016 17:10 To: Boost devel archive Cc: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Alternative names to Boost.Fit Alternatively, I wonder if its possible to use FunctionUtilities as the library name, but use 'fu' as the namespace name.
I don't think that there is any real need to make the Boost library name the same as the namespace name.
I believe the library name should be description - clear not curt (and not cute either ;-).
Nor is there any need to make the namespace name too short IMO.
If code has lots of repeated references to the namespace (unlikely?)
then a using funcutil::some_fun; or even using namespace funcutil; within local scope (not global scope of course).
So I'd suggest Boost.FunctionUtilities and namespace funcutil;
But it's your call (until you get shouted down ;-)
My first impressions if I saw the names: boost::fit - no idea, something with forward iterators maybe? boost::futils - file utilities? boost::funcutil - deals with function or functional utilities? My first impression of funcutil seems to be in line with the description of the library from the OP so that'd be my vote of the names suggested thus far.
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 4:41:29 AM UTC-6, Michael Marcin wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-...@lists.boost.org <javascript:>] On Behalf Of Paul Fultz II Sent: 02 March 2016 17:10 To: Boost devel archive Cc: bo...@lists.boost.org <javascript:> Subject: Re: [boost] Alternative names to Boost.Fit Alternatively, I wonder if its possible to use FunctionUtilities as the library name, but use 'fu' as the namespace name.
I don't think that there is any real need to make the Boost library name
On 3/2/2016 12:46 PM, Paul A. Bristow wrote: the same as the namespace name.
I believe the library name should be description - clear not curt (and
not cute either ;-).
Nor is there any need to make the namespace name too short IMO.
If code has lots of repeated references to the namespace (unlikely?)
then a using funcutil::some_fun; or even using namespace funcutil;
within local scope (not global scope of course).
So I'd suggest Boost.FunctionUtilities and namespace funcutil;
But it's your call (until you get shouted down ;-)
My first impressions if I saw the names:
boost::fit - no idea, something with forward iterators maybe? boost::futils - file utilities? boost::funcutil - deals with function or functional utilities?
My first impression of funcutil seems to be in line with the description of the library from the OP so that'd be my vote of the names suggested thus far.
However, I dont like the name funcutil at all. What about if you see the name Boost.Fn?
Hello All,
Boost.Fit is a function utility library, however, the name currently doesn't have anything with this. I originally chose the name because it started with F(for function) and it was short and sounded nice. However, there could be some names(or abbreviations) that more adequately describe the library. Here are some alternatives that are short:
- Boost.FP - Boost.FPL - Boost.Fun - Boost.FN
Of course, I prefer the Boost.FN name. Names like Boost.FP or Boost.FPL could imply that it provides full functional constructs whereas Boost.Fit does not and is mainly focused on functions. Maybe you can describe which functional constructs are not provided that
Le 02/03/2016 15:48, paul Fultz a écrit : prevents to name it FP/FPL It is also important to know if you have plans to extend the library in the future. Best, Vicente
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:56:29 AM UTC-6, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Hello All,
Boost.Fit is a function utility library, however, the name currently doesn't have anything with this. I originally chose the name because it started with F(for function) and it was short and sounded nice. However, there could be some names(or abbreviations) that more adequately describe the library. Here are some alternatives that are short:
- Boost.FP - Boost.FPL - Boost.Fun - Boost.FN
Of course, I prefer the Boost.FN name. Names like Boost.FP or Boost.FPL could imply that it provides full functional constructs whereas Boost.Fit does not and is mainly focused on functions. Maybe you can describe which functional constructs are not provided that
Le 02/03/2016 15:48, paul Fultz a écrit : prevents to name it FP/FPL
It is also important to know if you have plans to extend the library in the future.
The focus of the library is on functions. The scope of FP can be much larger including generic functors or monads. I do not plan to delve into those areas with this library.
On 3/2/16 6:48 AM, paul Fultz wrote:
Hello All,
Boost.Fit is a function utility library, however, the name currently doesn't have anything with this. I originally chose the name because it started with F(for function) and it was short and sounded nice. However, there could be some names(or abbreviations) that more adequately describe the library. Here are some alternatives that are short:
- Boost.FP - Boost.FPL - Boost.Fun - Boost.FN
Of course, I prefer the Boost.FN name. Names like Boost.FP or Boost.FPL could imply that it provides full functional constructs whereas Boost.Fit does not and is mainly focused on functions.
Either way, this is something reviewers could consider as they review the library as I am not strongly tied to the name Boost.Fit.
Thanks, Paul
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Personally, I'm not too crazy about abbreviations. And I'm not too crazy about "cute" names either - spirit, hana, etc. So it was up to me I'd live with "FunctionUtilities" or "FunctionObjects". Shortening the name creates confusion, makes code less readable. Since most of the library is defined inside the namespace, it doesn't really add any typing. In those cases where the typing does get long, one can at a (local) alias. Robert Ramey
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 8:50:54 AM UTC-6, Robert Ramey wrote:
Hello All,
Boost.Fit is a function utility library, however, the name currently doesn't have anything with this. I originally chose the name because it started with F(for function) and it was short and sounded nice. However, there could be some names(or abbreviations) that more adequately describe the library. Here are some alternatives that are short:
- Boost.FP - Boost.FPL - Boost.Fun - Boost.FN
Of course, I prefer the Boost.FN name. Names like Boost.FP or Boost.FPL could imply that it provides full functional constructs whereas Boost.Fit does not and is mainly focused on functions.
Either way, this is something reviewers could consider as they review
On 3/2/16 6:48 AM, paul Fultz wrote: the
library as I am not strongly tied to the name Boost.Fit.
Thanks, Paul
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Personally, I'm not too crazy about abbreviations. And I'm not too crazy about "cute" names either - spirit, hana, etc. So it was up to me I'd live with "FunctionUtilities" or "FunctionObjects".
Shortening the name creates confusion, makes code less readable. Since most of the library is defined inside the namespace, it doesn't really add any typing. In those cases where the typing does get long, one can at a (local) alias.
However, you can't namespace alias a macro though.
On 3/5/16 8:25 AM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
Shortening the name creates confusion, makes code less readable. Since most of the library is defined inside the namespace, it doesn't really add any typing. In those cases where the typing does get long, one can at a (local) alias.
However, you can't namespace alias a macro though.
Hmmm - you can't? Cant you just use #define MY_SHORTNAME RIDICUOUSLY_LONG_NAME and use MYSHORTNAME(X) in place of RIDICUOUSLY_LONG_NAME(X) I seem to recall this working. Even if you can't, I'd say the benefit of an abbreviation isn't worth the confusion it causes. Robert Ramey
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 12:00 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
On 3/5/16 8:25 AM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
Shortening the name creates confusion, makes code less readable. Since most of the library is defined inside the namespace, it doesn't really add any typing. In those cases where the typing does get long, one can at a (local) alias.
However, you can't namespace alias a macro though.
Hmmm - you can't? Cant you just use
#define MY_SHORTNAME RIDICUOUSLY_LONG_NAME
and use
MYSHORTNAME(X) in place of RIDICUOUSLY_LONG_NAME(X)
You have to do that for every macro. Plus, I would prefer a short name so the user doesn't have to write code when they want to use the library.
I seem to recall this working. Even if you can't, I'd say the benefit
of an abbreviation isn't worth the confusion it causes.
Especially, since a lot of functions are composable a long name such as boost::function_utilities make it unbearable. It is commons for a lot of libraries to shorten the name such Boost.Asio, Boost.MPL, Boost.MSM, Boost.GIL, Boost.ICL, and Boost.MPI. I would prefer an abbreviated name, such as: - Boost.Fn - Boost.FU - Boost.FL
On March 5, 2016 1:20:27 PM EST, paul Fultz <pfultz2@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Boost.FU
This one is both a problem and a fun name. As an acronym, it's a problem. I won't explain that further. If it were spelled "Fu", it would be like "Google Fu" and all of the other variations of kung fu. Unfortunately, that meaning disqualifies this option for your library, too, since "Boost Fu" would be generic to skill in using Boost libraries. ___ Rob (Sent from my portable computation engine)
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 1:29 PM, Rob Stewart <rstewart@ptd.net> wrote:
On March 5, 2016 1:20:27 PM EST, paul Fultz <pfultz2@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Boost.FU
This one is both a problem and a fun name. As an acronym, it's a problem. I won't explain that further. If it were spelled "Fu", it would be like "Google Fu" and all of the other variations of kung fu. Unfortunately, that meaning disqualifies this option for your library, too,
since "Boost Fu" would be generic to skill in using Boost libraries.
Yes, Boost.FU would not be my preferred choice. Perhaps, Boost.FUL would be better(but it looks to me like the first three letters of my last name). Ideally, I was preferring Boost.Fn. This is a library for functions. So ideally, I would like it to be called function or functions, but that name has already been taken by "any_function"(AKA boost::function). This is why I was leaning towards an abbreviation of function instead(ie Fn). With longer names, I would prefer acronyms: * Boost.FL - Function Library * Boost.FUL - Function Utility Library * Boost.HOF - Higher-order Functions * Boost.FCL - Function Combinator Library * Boost.PEF(my initials) - Programming Enhancements for Functions For simple short names, there is: * Boost.Combinator - however, the library is more than combinators * Boost.Curry - the library is more than currying. My preferred choice: * Boost.Fn - A library for functions
On 3/5/16 13:50, Peter Dimov wrote:
paul Fultz wrote:
My preferred choice:
* Boost.Fn - A library for functions
Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with "Fit" itself. It even starts with F so you could backronym something if needed.
+1 -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 3:51 PM, Peter Dimov <lists@pdimov.com> wrote:
paul Fultz wrote:
My preferred choice:
* Boost.Fn - A library for functions
Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with "Fit" itself. It even starts with F
so you could backronym something if needed.
Perhaps Function Integrated Templates? One issue with Fit, is that when its pronounced in Swedish it means something inappropriate. I really do like the name Boost.Fn, however, others may not like so much, so without a better alternative it might be better to stick with Boost.Fit.
Le 02/03/2016 15:48, paul Fultz a écrit :
Hello All,
Boost.Fit is a function utility library, however, the name currently doesn't have anything with this. I originally chose the name because it started with F(for function) and it was short and sounded nice. However, there could be some names(or abbreviations) that more adequately describe the library. Here are some alternatives that are short:
- Boost.FP - Boost.FPL - Boost.Fun - Boost.FN
Of course, I prefer the Boost.FN name. Names like Boost.FP or Boost.FPL could imply that it provides full functional constructs whereas Boost.Fit does not and is mainly focused on functions.
Either way, this is something reviewers could consider as they review the library as I am not strongly tied to the name Boost.Fit.
Hi, Paul if the scope of the library is high order function I propose to rename it to Boost.HighOrderFunctions. We could use boost::hof as name space and boost/hof/ as folder. Best, Vicente
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:42:59 AM UTC-6, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Hello All,
Boost.Fit is a function utility library, however, the name currently doesn't have anything with this. I originally chose the name because it started with F(for function) and it was short and sounded nice. However, there could be some names(or abbreviations) that more adequately describe the library. Here are some alternatives that are short:
- Boost.FP - Boost.FPL - Boost.Fun - Boost.FN
Of course, I prefer the Boost.FN name. Names like Boost.FP or Boost.FPL could imply that it provides full functional constructs whereas Boost.Fit does not and is mainly focused on functions.
Either way, this is something reviewers could consider as they review
Le 02/03/2016 15:48, paul Fultz a écrit : the
library as I am not strongly tied to the name Boost.Fit.
Hi,
Paul if the scope of the library is high order function I propose to rename it to Boost.HighOrderFunctions. We could use boost::hof as name space and boost/hof/ as folder.
The adaptors and decorators are HOFs, and the other functions are used to help when using HOFs, so it does make sense to name it Boost.HighOrderFunctions. I like this name.
Best, Vicente
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 11/03/2016 07:52, Paul Fultz II wrote:
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:42:59 AM UTC-6, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Paul if the scope of the library is high order function I propose to rename it to Boost.HighOrderFunctions. We could use boost::hof as name space and boost/hof/ as folder.
The adaptors and decorators are HOFs, and the other functions are used to help when using HOFs, so it does make sense to name it Boost.HighOrderFunctions. I like this name.
Or perhaps, HighOrderFunctionLibrary? HOFL:HOFL:HOFL:HOFL ___^___ _ L __/ [] \ LOL===__ \ L \___ ___ ___] I I ----------/ (I regret nothing.)
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Gavin Lambert wrote:
(I regret nothing.)
Boost.Hoff.
Hasselhoff? Confirmed: The German HPC posse's agent that has infiltrated Boost.
Le 11/03/2016 00:19, Glen Fernandes a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Gavin Lambert wrote:
(I regret nothing.)
Boost.Hoff.
Hasselhoff? Confirmed: The German HPC posse's agent that has infiltrated Boost.
Not yet ;-) Vicente
I'm a fan of short namespaces - because I tend to ban 'using namespace' (If someone calls sort(...) I want to know without looking whether that's std::sort or my::sort) You could call it Boost.Fultz and backronym that. Or Boost.Futlz - Function Utilz. On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Le 11/03/2016 00:19, Glen Fernandes a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Gavin Lambert wrote:
(I regret nothing.)
Boost.Hoff.
Hasselhoff? Confirmed: The German HPC posse's agent that has infiltrated Boost.
Not yet ;-) Vicente
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 7:27:22 PM UTC-6, Gottlob Frege wrote:
I'm a fan of short namespaces - because I tend to ban 'using namespace' (If someone calls sort(...) I want to know without looking whether that's std::sort or my::sort)
You could call it Boost.Fultz and backronym that. Or Boost.Futlz - Function Utilz.
:) Well, I did suggest earlier Boost.PEF, which were my initials, but I think I am going to go with Boost.HOF(HigherOrderFunctions). Despite the Hasselhoff theme, HOF is a common abbreviation for Higher-Order Function.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicent...@wanadoo.fr <javascript:>> wrote:
Le 11/03/2016 00:19, Glen Fernandes a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Gavin Lambert wrote:
(I regret nothing.)
Boost.Hoff.
Hasselhoff? Confirmed: The German HPC posse's agent that has infiltrated Boost.
Not yet ;-) Vicente
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
participants (13)
-
Gavin Lambert -
Glen Fernandes -
Gottlob Frege -
Jonathan Franklin -
Michael Caisse -
Michael Marcin -
Paul A. Bristow -
paul Fultz -
Paul Fultz II
-
Peter Dimov -
Rob Stewart -
Robert Ramey -
Vicente J. Botet Escriba