This ship has undoubtedly sailed, but I'd like to register my displeasure with names like "uniqued," "taken," and "strided" et. al. The effect (subjectively of course) is to take a beautiful, minimal abstract notation that reflects a common practice (seriously, it's "grep," which is a verb, not "grepped") and mess it up with unconventional and awkward linguistic insurance against misunderstanding. this-has-been-a-test-of-the-emergency-nattering-system-ly y'rs, -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On 28/06/12 13:06, Dave Abrahams wrote:
This ship has undoubtedly sailed, but I'd like to register my displeasure with names like "uniqued," "taken," and "strided" et. al. The effect (subjectively of course) is to take a beautiful, minimal abstract notation that reflects a common practice (seriously, it's "grep," which is a verb, not "grepped") and mess it up with unconventional and awkward linguistic insurance against misunderstanding.
this-has-been-a-test-of-the-emergency-nattering-system-ly y'rs,
Dave, This came up for discussion during the review of Boost.RangeEx. Ultimately the majority preferred the naming and syntax we currently have. While acknowledging the importance of finding clear names that identify our abstractions, the choices here are both equal in this respect. To my estimation there is no impact on external quality factors and therefore while there will be strong opinions the outcome of this debate does not appreciably affect the quality of the library. Both naming conventions are unlikely to create confusion. I don't recall your input during the review on this matter. There are clearly some adjustments that can be made: 1. I could add the non-'ed' suffixed versions in a manner that minimizes backward compatibility issues; 2. We could revisit the idea of having both the function and pipe forms; 3. We could provide a new namespace with new names. I am very open to changing these especially since I believe we can do this without negatively impacting my treasured early adopters. Your displeasure troubles me. I am sure you have some ideas of actions you would like taken to alleviate the displeasure. Would you mind being a little more explicit about what those might be. Please remember that I'm of limited intellect, please use small words! Thanks, Neil Groves
on Thu Jun 28 2012, Neil Groves <neil-AT-grovescomputing.com> wrote:
On 28/06/12 13:06, Dave Abrahams wrote:
This ship has undoubtedly sailed, but I'd like to register my displeasure with names like "uniqued," "taken," and "strided" et. al. The effect (subjectively of course) is to take a beautiful, minimal abstract notation that reflects a common practice (seriously, it's "grep," which is a verb, not "grepped") and mess it up with unconventional and awkward linguistic insurance against misunderstanding.
this-has-been-a-test-of-the-emergency-nattering-system-ly y'rs,
Dave,
This came up for discussion during the review of Boost.RangeEx. Ultimately the majority preferred the naming and syntax we currently have. While acknowledging the importance of finding clear names that identify our abstractions, the choices here are both equal in this respect. To my estimation there is no impact on external quality factors and therefore while there will be strong opinions the outcome of this debate does not appreciably affect the quality of the library. Both naming conventions are unlikely to create confusion.
Right. It's just a question of syntactic and linguistic/grammatical "noise." Mostly the latter.
I don't recall your input during the review on this matter.
I may not have had any. Or I may have held the opposite opinion then :-)
There are clearly some adjustments that can be made: 1. I could add the non-'ed' suffixed versions in a manner that minimizes backward compatibility issues;
That was my thought.
2. We could revisit the idea of having both the function and pipe forms; 3. We could provide a new namespace with new names.
I am very open to changing these especially since I believe we can do this without negatively impacting my treasured early adopters.
Your displeasure troubles me. I am sure you have some ideas of actions you would like taken to alleviate the displeasure. Would you mind being a little more explicit about what those might be.
See above.
Please remember that I'm of limited intellect, please use small words!
Kindly abnegate all asservations of insufficient perspicacity. i-worked-hard-on-that-one-ly y'rs, -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Jun 28 2012, Neil Groves <neil-AT-grovescomputing.com> wrote:
Please remember that I'm of limited intellect, please use small words!
Kindly abnegate all asservations of insufficient perspicacity.
i-worked-hard-on-that-one-ly y'rs,
Nice, but: s/asservations/asseverations/ just-to-continue-the-fun-but-less-succinctly: Benignant abnegation of immoderate obtuseness asseverations is but infrequently disparaged. ___ Rob ________________________________ IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
participants (3)
-
Dave Abrahams -
Neil Groves -
Stewart, Robert