• Matthew Wilson (29/29) Jul 16 2004 [btw, sorry for the stream-of-consciousness blitzkrieg of posts, but DTL...
• Matthias Becker (6/32) Jul 16 2004 hmm
• Matthias Becker (6/13) Jul 16 2004 Oops. It's
• Jason Mills (8/10) Jul 16 2004 I'm curious why you would use _if and _with, rather than the normal
• Matthew Wilson (5/15) Jul 16 2004 digestible
• Brad Anderson (2/26) Jul 16 2004 Lisp? Ruby?
• Matthew (3/29) Jul 16 2004 C++ first and foremost, but too much Ruby, Python, Perl of late as well....

"Matthew Wilson" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

[btw, sorry for the stream-of-consciousness blitzkrieg of posts, but DTL'll
do that to ya. :)]

Here's a thought:

Currently we cannot have overloads of member template functions. That's not
a massive hindrence, and I can live with it if providing it would be a
significant problem for compilation. However, it does leave us with a few
issues.

I'd like to suggest another naming convention, for collection members. Any
(constructive) thoughts on the following are welcome:

    Container
    {
        bool contains(value_type value)
        {
            . . .
        }
        template contains_if(F) { bool contains_if(F f)
        {
            . . .
        }}

        <result-set> sort()
        {
            . . .
        }
        template sort_with(F) { <result-set> sort_with(F f)
        {
            . . .
        }}


So, basically, we use the suffixes of "_if" and "_with". Is that digestible
to you good people?

Matthias Becker <Matthias_member pathlink.com> writes:

Currently we cannot have overloads of member template functions. That's not
a massive hindrence, and I can live with it if providing it would be a
significant problem for compilation. However, it does leave us with a few
issues.

I'd like to suggest another naming convention, for collection members. Any
(constructive) thoughts on the following are welcome:

    Container
    {
        bool contains(value_type value)
        {
            . . .
        }
        template contains_if(F) { bool contains_if(F f)
        {
            . . .
        }}

        <result-set> sort()
        {
            . . .
        }
        template sort_with(F) { <result-set> sort_with(F f)
        {
            . . .
        }}


So, basically, we use the suffixes of "_if" and "_with". Is that digestible
to you good people?


hmm

result = foo.sort_with (delegate bool (Bar x, Bar y) { return x > y; });
..
if (foo.contains_if (delegate bool (Bar x) { return x % 2 == 0; }))
..

OK. I can live with that.

Matthias Becker <Matthias_member pathlink.com> writes:

hmm

result = foo.sort_with (delegate bool (Bar x, Bar y) { return x > y; });
..
if (foo.contains_if (delegate bool (Bar x) { return x % 2 == 0; }))
..

OK. I can live with that.

Oops. It's

result = foo.sort_with!(delegate bool (Bar x, Bar y)) (delegate bool (Bar x, Bar
y) { return x > y; });
..
if (foo.contains_if!(delegate bool (Bar x) ) (delegate bool (Bar x) { return x
% 2 == 0; }))

..

Well, naming is still ok, but this doesn't look too good, does it?

Jason Mills <jmills cs.mun.ca> writes:

Matthew Wilson wrote:
 So, basically, we use the suffixes of "_if" and "_with". Is that digestible
 to you good people?

I'm curious why you would use _if and _with, rather than the normal 
convention of separating words with capitals, like xxxIf, xxxWith?

sort_with()
contains_if()

sortWith()
containsIf()

Jason

"Matthew Wilson" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"Jason Mills" <jmills cs.mun.ca> wrote in message
news:cd8eas$5bc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Matthew Wilson wrote:
 So, basically, we use the suffixes of "_if" and "_with". Is that


digestible
 to you good people?

 I'm curious why you would use _if and _with, rather than the normal
 convention of separating words with capitals, like xxxIf, xxxWith?

 sort_with()
 contains_if()

 sortWith()
 containsIf()

 Jason

A diet of too many languages. He he

Sure, I mean sortWith and containsIf. :-)

Brad Anderson <brad sankaty.dot.com> writes:

Matthew Wilson wrote:
 "Jason Mills" <jmills cs.mun.ca> wrote in message
 news:cd8eas$5bc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Matthew Wilson wrote:

So, basically, we use the suffixes of "_if" and "_with". Is that


 
 digestible
 
to you good people?

I'm curious why you would use _if and _with, rather than the normal
convention of separating words with capitals, like xxxIf, xxxWith?

sort_with()
contains_if()

sortWith()
containsIf()

Jason

 
 
 A diet of too many languages. He he

Lisp?  Ruby?

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

"Brad Anderson" <brad sankaty.dot.com> wrote in message
news:cd8kuh$7me$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Matthew Wilson wrote:
 "Jason Mills" <jmills cs.mun.ca> wrote in message
 news:cd8eas$5bc$1 digitaldaemon.com...

Matthew Wilson wrote:

So, basically, we use the suffixes of "_if" and "_with". Is that


 digestible

to you good people?

I'm curious why you would use _if and _with, rather than the normal
convention of separating words with capitals, like xxxIf, xxxWith?

sort_with()
contains_if()

sortWith()
containsIf()

Jason


 A diet of too many languages. He he

 Lisp?  Ruby?

C++ first and foremost, but too much Ruby, Python, Perl of late as well. ;)