On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:19:44 -0700, Louis Dionne
Paul A. Bristow
writes: [snip] And, for me, the names of functions are enough to condemn the library as unacceptable for Boost.
I have reasons to be uncomfortable with changing names in the library:
- While names are inconsistent with the usual C++, they are consistent inside the library. Changing one name can break this consistency if I'm not careful. Further, there are names which just don't have a C++-friendly name, so I can't hope to change _all_ the names. We'll have to deal with either 100% FP names or 50% C++ / 50% FP, but 100% C++ just can't be done.
- Some, C++ names imply some kind of mutation of the structure. Since Hana does not do any mutation, I must be careful not to choose a name that suggests something that's not the reality.
If you haven't/aren't already doing so, you can explicitly document: 1) That this is an FP library. 2) Why it is so and how this impacts the naming and design. Explicitly, why a non-FP approach would make for a sub-par library. 3) When any unfamiliar (to C++ programmers) names are first introduced provide (the approximate?) C++ mapping. A part of the documentation may just be about educating a FP-illiterate audience. It would also be help if some of the C++14 concepts were explained, or in the least their use highlighted with appropriate links to references. One last thought, as Joe-everyday programmer why should I care about this library? What does it allow me to do (or do easier) that I wasn't able to do before? My thoughts, Mostafa