On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:24:18 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
<[email protected]> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:21:29 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-02-21 02:15:23 -0500, Norbert Nemec
<[email protected]> said:
similarly, I would suggest
"reverse" to sort in-place
"reversed" to return a modified copy
I that's a not so bad solution, applicable to almost any word. There
are cases where it doesn't work ('split'), but probably not too much.
"split" - to split in place
"splat" - to return a modified copy
Just to clarify: there is some point being missed here. It's not about
in-place vs. copy. Please check retro's documentation.
By copy he means it doesn't affect the original. Retro returns a
"virtual" copy :)
But it's a valid point. There are three degrees of freedom here, which
ideally should be reflected in the API: in-place, copy and view (or
virtual copy if you like).
As far as English terms go, how do you distinguish between a lazy and
eager copy? There are actually even more subtle possibilities. For
example, split could return an array of slices -- which is not a copy of
the data, but is a unique copy of the split points. I think it's not
possible to have a rule to encompass all possibilities, but a rule to
cover 80% of the most useful representations is good enough.
Also, I would think one would prefer a view whenever possible, because you
can always make a hard copy from the view, but you can't do it the other
way around.
-Steve
