On 2010-03-05 01:53:32 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
Robert Jacques wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:22:55 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
[snip]
I like this idea. I've gotten used to using template constraints and
ranges when coding which matches this strategy naturally. A lot of the
capabilities seem to match ranges, but why did you use different names
for some of them?
removeBack : popBack
removeFront: popFront
pushBack : put
pushFront : putFront?
It's intentional. You don't want to use a container as a range by mistake.
I agree that "put" has different semantics than "push" so the name
should be different, but what's the difference in semantics between
"remove" and "pop"? Both remove an element from the subject (range or
container). I think they should share the same name.
You say you don't want to mix ranges with containers. But a container
somewhat has the same semantics as an input stream: if you remove/pop
something form it, it's no longer there for anyone. You decided to
implement input streams as ranges, but at the same time you avoid
reusing the same interface for containers; isn't that a little
contradictory?
Why couldn't a container have the same interface as a range, only with
the added ability to push elements into it?
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
