Le 25/05/2012 17:00, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 5/25/12 8:06 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 25.05.2012 17:04, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
So I was writing a container class and in some test code, I called
container.clear(). Reasonable enough, right? Hell, it even compiled!
Turns out, my program completely broke at runtime. Apparently, I'd
forgotten to implement clear() on my container class, and
*object.clear() was being called instead*.
I don't blame UFCS for this. It just happened to be the reason this
compiled at all. But, what I do think is: clear is the *ABSOLUTELY MOST
HORRIBLE NAME EVER* for a function that actually finalizes and zeroes an
object. Did it not seem obvious to call it, I don't know, *finalize*?
And even ignoring the naming, having a symbol called clear in the
'global' namespace is absolute insanity.
Am I the only person with this opinion?
No, there are thousands like you. Let's call clear "nuke", breaking TDPL
and saving the day. :)
P.S. Obviously first clear goes through normal deprecation cycle.
Since this is a recurring issue we should probably change the name.
Andrei
It has already been suggested, but finalize is something that is
explicit, and it is already used in other languages. We should go that
way IMO.
