From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-03 11:56:03
Eric Niebler wrote:
> Dave Harris wrote:
>> Is there a compelling reason to omit the second underline?
> I don't think there's a /compelling/ reason, but here's my thought
> process:
>
> * This isn't an algorithm, so I don't want to evoke std::for_each.
> * It's like a new keyword, and some other languages have "foreach" as
> a keyword.
>
> Anyway, I'm not married to the name, and I'd gladly change it if
> people preferred to type an extra underscore. :-)
I prefer as few underscores as possible without inventing new abbreviations.
Since "foreach" is an established keyword, I prefer BOOST_FOREACH to
BOOST_FOR_EACH.
For people who really want the second underscore, you can assure them that it is
added automatically behind the scenes to save them the extra typing ;-)
Jonathan