Re: [boost] Intrusive library review results: library accepted
Steven Watanabe writes:
AMDG
brass goowy <brass <at> goowy.com> writes:
- Drop the 'i' prefix from the names of containers.
I disagree with this one. I think std and intrusive containers will often be used together. This decision will lead to longer names in those cases.
Is there something wrong with longer names?
I prefer being able to write ilist to Intrusive::list
I would support dropping the prefix if the resulting name wasn't the same as in the std. Why not get rid of all the vowels and call them lst?
For one thing, it looks too much like 1st.
Isn't there a possibility intrusive containers will make it into the standard? If they get that nod there will be a little problem if they have the exact same names as the standard containers. This reminds me of that tv program... "This is my brother Daryl and this is my other brother Daryl." Brian Wood Ebenezer Enterprises www.webEbenezer.net
AMDG brass goowy <brass <at> goowy.com> writes:
Is there something wrong with longer names?
I prefer being able to write ilist to Intrusive::list
That's where we differ.
Isn't there a possibility intrusive containers will make it into the standard? If they get that nod there will be a little problem if they have the exact same names as the standard containers. This reminds me of that tv program... "This is my brother Daryl and this is my other brother Daryl."
Put them in std::intrusive. IMO, if the standard library continues to grow, eventually namespace std will need to be broken up anyway. In Christ, Steven Watanabe
Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
brass goowy <brass <at> goowy.com> writes:
Is there something wrong with longer names? I prefer being able to write ilist to Intrusive::list
That's where we differ.
I agree with steven here, especially since I use the prefix "i" to identify interfaces (abstract classes). It is always easy and possible to shorten stuff with macros, the other way round is not so easy. Michael
Is there something wrong with longer names? I prefer being able to write ilist to Intrusive::list That's where we differ.
I agree with steven here, especially since I use the prefix "i" to identify interfaces (abstract classes). It is always easy and possible to shorten stuff with macros, the other way round is not so easy.
Just to throw it out there, the usage intrusive::vector would be inconsistent with, for example, the ptr_container library, which uses ptr_vector instead of ptr_container::vector. -Lewis
participants (4)
-
brass goowy -
Lewis Hyatt -
Michael Lacher -
Steven Watanabe