220 7183 <3a0736c8-9ba9-434a-8abe-9a0fa4d15149@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Evgeny Panasyuk Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: "count_while" and "count_until" algorithms Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 74 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <3a0736c8-9ba9-434a-8abe-9a0fa4d15149@isocpp.org> References: <2602b3fd-fccd-459b-be1a-93a12005dc5c@isocpp.org> <231e6ef1-599d-4877-be6c-55e85e5a4e41@isocpp.org> <6e15fc38-8be3-4e74-ade9-e25a8d0e0509@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_375_18345402.1381265797761" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1381265798 15173 80.91.229.3 (8 Oct 2013 20:56:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:56:38 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC54TLGKR4LBBB7D2GJAKGQEKKK4SWY@isocpp.org Tue Oct 08 22:56:42 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oa0-f70.google.com ([209.85.219.70]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VTeKe-0007hw-J8 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:56:40 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id g12sf28832294oah.9 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=IbK6EJ6GK3XKfx8OcmvWCsnPXOSvmo7xz51nrIyjoN4=; b=zAHtnMNBl5MBDX0kKu+kK5nDxp63ckrpdbUU8GSTYFqgpI8TFNYV96Lyj9R63ASNeT G2j0LUuT7025L/u3va+brWqWMlTnkMeCz2E6xe+k0ddcXa/esH3C6GrlR+xgJSCL6TE6 vKu0Gn5Yw5v4Dqzhd2QkeFifiVk4g5a1xSpR4CzrD9J1MfPrcftuZBls8QlU3TrmQ3rR h8XWa4SfnDkDi/YEe+L3vemu4gg1MQVVwZQ7u0Ukgabo/pzgwqFtZcV7khTnJjabmYto inEghhXxrzfgobn+qVMwyYkf9IiJM9+7BL4It2XqprSfVxu9IwitfOPyOg0dGZbu25aR QyCw== X-Received: by 10.43.152.19 with SMTP id ku19mr2059721icc.24.1381265799580; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.30.130 with SMTP id s2ls640812igh.23.gmail; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.22.35 with SMTP id a3mr1070004igf.17.1381265799105; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: evgeny.panasyuk@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:7183 Archived-At: ------=_Part_375_18345402.1381265797761 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 9 oct 2013 =D0=B3., 0:50:34 UTC+4 Nevin ":-)" Liber: > > On 8 October 2013 15:44, Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler > > wrote: > >> Traditionally a std::pair is used for this. >> > > While true, I really rather we get away from doing so, as "iterator" and= =20 > "count" are far better field names than "first" and "second". > > I agree. In my own code I just create new struct with good field names - it= =20 is not a burden at all. And by the way, new struct is more "type-rich" way. But I don't really sure about ISO - there is long history of returning=20 std::pair, like std::map::insert. --=20 ---=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposa= ls/. ------=_Part_375_18345402.1381265797761 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
9 oct 2013 =D0=B3., 0:50:34 UTC+4 Nevin ":-)" Liber:<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bord= er-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
On 8 October 2= 013 15:44, Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler <daniel....@gmail= ..com> wrote:
Traditionally a std::pair<A, B> is use= d for this.

While true, I really rather= we get away from doing so, as "iterator" and "count" are far better field = names than "first" and "second".


I agree. In my own code I= just create new struct with good field names - it is not a burden at all. = And by the way, new struct is more "type-rich" way.
But I don't really s= ure about ISO - there is long history of returning std::pair, like std::map= ::insert.

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
------=_Part_375_18345402.1381265797761-- .