On 01/21/2011 07:47 PM, so wrote:
replace is clearer in the first case, because you're getting the
return value.
...
I am really trying hard to understand this, but your reasons for first
is clearer then the second makes no sense to me i am sorry.
I still think second is clearer, but whatever, as long as i can see the
interface or the doc, i am fine.
string replace(string, ...);
void replace(ref string, ...);
Regardless, I don't see anything wrong with naming functions in a
manner that
implies that a functional style is the default
I am not against enforcing such a rule, i am against doing it implicitly
and work with assumptions.
Just check boost/string/replace, they have in place replaces default
too. You might not like boost (some don't) but it is the closest example
to D.
Without any additional information, I would necessirily assume replace
performs an /action/ because it's an action verb: meaning it changes the
argument. Like 'so', I cannot understand the converse reasoning.
I you want people to guess that a true function returns a result, just
name it according to its result: replacedString, ot just replaced.
Nobody, I guess, would ever think that a routine called replacedString
acts in-place.
Denis
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
