On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Niall Douglas
On 5 Jun 2015 at 16:57, Glen Fernandes wrote:
You are strongly encouraged to also provide additional information: - What is your evaluation of the library's: * Design
There is a still a bit to go to match STL naming conventions, though it has improved enormously over before. For example, the STL uses empty(), not is_empty(). is_empty() in the STL means something different.
I'd also *hugely* prefer if Hana matched, name for name, the name choices in Ranges v3. For example, it's group() in Hana, but group_by() in Ranges v3. That would lessen the cognitive load for people using both together - which I suspect in the longer term will be many if not most. It also would increase the chances of Hana entering the standard C++ library as a compile-time version of Ranges.
+1 Zach