On 12/29/13 8:14 AM, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On Sunday, 29 December 2013 at 16:01:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I also think it should be shorter, because a) it's a fundamental, and
thus very commonly used template, and b) code that manipulates lists are
functional in nature which results in long lines that are also hard to
split up because sometimes they are in template constraints or function
template parameter lists etc.
No. This is the wrong place to go for short names.
It would be nice to hear more than "no" when I provided two very good
reasons for why I think this is the right place to go for a short name.
It's been discussed before - these are advanced notions that won't be
used frequently and naively.
I like the name `list`.
Define your own alias that way and let the long self-explanatory be.
Consistency is king; the standard name will almost always trump any
other name for readability. Defaults are important :)
Yeah, on the other hand we don't want to go down in history as the
language that named 'list' something that's emphatically not that.
Andrei
