From: Valentin Bonnard (Bonnard.V_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-06-15 09:56:39
Beman Dawes wrote:
>
> At 12:04 AM 6/15/99 -0700, Jerry Schwarz wrote:
>
> >How about something like
> >
> >compose_f_gx
> >compose_f_gx_hx
> >compose_f_gx_hy
> >compose_f_gxy
> >
> >I think those names are transparent enough that I don't need to
> >explain which is
> >which, and I think they're uniform enough that they would be easy to
> >remember.
Great
Resonably scalable (until we need paratheses).
Clear convention:
- f,g,h are first parameters
- x,y,z are second parameters
> The _f seems redundant. Could we drop it (and adjust accordingly)?
>
> compose_fx
> compose_fx_gx
> compose_fx_gy
> compose_fxy
The result makes no sens now. compose_fx looks like
function application.
-- Valentin Bonnard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications