On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Louis Dionne
pfultz2
writes: Here's a few list of names off the top of my head that could use more C++-like names:
foldl = fold foldr = reverse_fold fmap = transform cons = push_front scons = push_back datatype = tag,tag_of head = front last = back typeclass = concept
I agree that using more C++ish names could make it more tempting for people to adopt the library. I'll think about providing aliases.
I agree with Paul, for FWIW. (as an average C++ dev who only dabbled in MPL and Fusion, with little FP experience, and who finds cons and scons really "esoteric")
Also, most C++ programmers are used to seeing libraries divided into containers and algorithms, whereas Boost.Hana seemed to be built around haskell-like interfaces.
Hana is actually built around concepts (type classes) and models of those concepts (data types). Apart from the names, which I agree could have been chosen differently, it's the same "design paradigm" as usual generic C++ libraries.
Names matter of course. And the closer you stay to C++ lore, as Paul mentioned, the better IMHO. And I'm not sure aliases is the way to go, since having two names for the same thing only makes code reading difficult if it uses the "other" name one's not used to. It's your library of course, I'd never -1 it based on the name you prefer to use. Thanks, --DD