Subject: Re: [boost] Alternative names to Boost.Fit
From: paul Fultz (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-05 13:20:27
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 12:00 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 3/5/16 8:25 AM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
>
>>> Shortening the name creates confusion, makes code less readable. Since
>>> most of the library is defined inside the namespace, it doesn't
> really
>>> add any typing. In those cases where the typing does get long, one can
>>> at a (local) alias.
>>>
>>
>> However, you can't namespace alias a macro though.
>
> Hmmm - you can't? Cant you just use
>
>
> #define MY_SHORTNAME RIDICUOUSLY_LONG_NAME
>
> and use
>
> MYSHORTNAME(X) in place of RIDICUOUSLY_LONG_NAME(X)
You have to do that for every macro. Plus, I would prefer a short name so the user doesn't have to write code when they want to use the library.
>
> I seem to recall this working. Even if you can't, I'd say the benefit
> of an abbreviation isn't worth the confusion it causes.
Especially, since a lot of functions are composable a long name such as boost::function_utilities make it unbearable. It is commons for a lot of libraries to shorten the name such Boost.Asio, Boost.MPL, Boost.MSM, Boost.GIL, Boost.ICL, and Boost.MPI.
I would prefer an abbreviated name, such as:
- Boost.Fn
- Boost.FU
- Boost.FL