220 13712 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Vlad from Moscow Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Generic std::size, a la std::begin Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 11:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 124 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <8808df5e-62c4-459d-acd9-00e63adb9476@isocpp.org> <20141004004445.GA8207@lenovo> <890596a6-4fe4-4fe4-b96b-0196aaac94cf@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_424_626440836.1412619386743" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1412619397 5590 80.91.229.3 (6 Oct 2014 18:16:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 18:16:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mw_triad@users.sourceforge.net To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCXLLRHD7IDRB7FYZOQQKGQEJIK5IZA@isocpp.org Mon Oct 06 20:16:30 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f71.google.com ([209.85.220.71]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XbCph-0000ny-M1 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 20:16:29 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-pa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id rd3sf41674325pab.10 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:16:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc: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=DeqCT70JHZm1k6Ac38+pfTFotH4gXqwmS5INmo7X2Js=; b=fqv9vY0py64bd8nOx0LCW2jbZNwg/bffrhfPr2j+DXo8pXfNaMz+Xqm2FLvFh7G8Ox IzAS6pj07EyidxsySTKvV4WO73xmWDxC/dc8D6Qt6pYU0njCDckcTsg2Ck/P9UTXo+MJ u6aQYAAehtBJ3d3JXOorIZl8XLUt/FEWeqDuTFtZ3BwjX1PveerLAeVbsmOcJHm4o1gx UyH5ddPAap+VpNOyKNzy9qFMfXE8uSib36+dYdzDNvXRSarFuHO74gGCQDZWsf12jqBW S+xYFIro6KRnpwhJqCVA0O2rnftotMPUaLFfJp7lnUi3y/XhEQNNjiaIjRPufzcgpaja c62w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlVi5funBEArdvgwDwbraIxr7vtgTJ3yUPCc88HNlF53fRe9u9m/e4nQ4WARmldEN5sdCCw X-Received: by 10.66.171.10 with SMTP id aq10mr16725843pac.28.1412619388624; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:16:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.27.201 with SMTP id 67ls1155050qgx.24.gmail; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:16:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.37.39 with SMTP id q36mr35867qgq.10.1412619387931; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:16:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: vlad.moscow@mail.ru 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:13712 Archived-At: ------=_Part_424_626440836.1412619386743 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also some containers as for example associative containers have member=20 function count. So using general function with the same name will only=20 confuse users. =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BD=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=BD=D0=B8=D0=BA, 6 =D0= =BE=D0=BA=D1=82=D1=8F=D0=B1=D1=80=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., 21:42:54 UTC+4 =D0=BF= =D0=BE=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C Vlad fro= m=20 Moscow =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB: > I do not see any ambiguity between size and sizeof. I see an ambiguity=20 > between member function size and count and betwwen member functions begin= =20 > and end and general functions begin and end on the one hand and member=20 > function size and general function count on the other hand. > > =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BD=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=BD=D0=B8=D0=BA, 6 =D0= =BE=D0=BA=D1=82=D1=8F=D0=B1=D1=80=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., 21:32:48 UTC+4 =D0=BF= =D0=BE=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C Matthew= =20 > Woehlke =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB: >> >> On 2014-10-06 13:19, Vlad from Moscow wrote:=20 >> > Name size is much better.=20 >> >> I disagree.=20 >> >> > we could have member function size for containers and=20 >> > general function size that can be also applied to arrays,=20 >> >> ...or we could have member functions *'count'*, as Myriachan mentioned= =20 >> :-). Qt got this right.=20 >> >> int foo[5];=20 >> sizeof(foo); // 20, of course=20 >> size(foo); // er... 20? right? why would the "of" change it?=20 >> size(*foo); // this is legal, yes? and =3D=3D 4?=20 >> count(foo); // unambiguously it is 5, *not* 20=20 >> >> --=20 >> Matthew=20 >> >> --=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_424_626440836.1412619386743 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Also some containers as for example associative conta= iners have member function count. So using general function with the same n= ame will only confuse users.


=D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BD=D0=B5=D0= =B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=BD=D0=B8=D0=BA, 6 =D0=BE=D0=BA=D1=82=D1=8F=D0=B1= =D1=80=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., 21:42:54 UTC+4 =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0= =B7=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C Vlad from Moscow =D0=BD=D0=B0= =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB:
I do not see any ambiguity between size and sizeof. I see an ambig= uity between member function size and count and betwwen member functions be= gin and end and general functions begin and end on the one hand and member = function size and general function count on the other hand.

=D0=BF= =D0=BE=D0=BD=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=BD=D0=B8=D0=BA, 6 =D0=BE=D0= =BA=D1=82=D1=8F=D0=B1=D1=80=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., 21:32:48 UTC+4 =D0=BF= =D0=BE=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C Matthew = Woehlke =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB:
On 2014-10-06 13:19, Vlad from Moscow wrote:
> Name size is much better.

I disagree.

> we could have member function size for containers and=20
> general function size that can be also applied to arrays,

...or we could have member functions *'count'*, as Myriachan mentioned
:-). Qt got this right.

  int foo[5];
  sizeof(foo); // 20, of course
  size(foo); // er... 20? right? why would the "of" change it?
  size(*foo); // this is legal, yes? and =3D=3D 4?
  count(foo); // unambiguously it is 5, *not* 20

--=20
Matthew

--

---
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-proposa= ls+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_424_626440836.1412619386743-- .