220 15318 <70cb668c-232f-44a6-835f-e78fb7ae0056@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Prowl Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Isn't it time we had the bool std::[container]::contains() family of methods? Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 07:13:24 -0800 (PST) Lines: 90 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <70cb668c-232f-44a6-835f-e78fb7ae0056@isocpp.org> References: <0959f2f8-acdd-4786-b6f3-0f05c62dcee6@isocpp.org> <2df86492-548f-42c8-86d6-fe1c8ba3a5a9@isocpp.org> <2f390ec3-b259-4150-9771-cd0d02860348@isocpp.org> <3743ebda-3367-4fc3-922a-f38d98e57889@isocpp.org> <1bccb2dd-4aa4-4f07-8958-b1d6bf092630@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_684_947562529.1419606804786" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1419606813 25113 80.91.229.3 (26 Dec 2014 15:13:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:13:33 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCG63E4DYQKRBFPW6WSAKGQE3PLK6QA@isocpp.org Fri Dec 26 16:13:28 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pd0-f200.google.com ([209.85.192.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y4WZz-0005y6-Aq for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 16:13:27 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-pd0-f200.google.com with SMTP id r10sf75797855pdi.7 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 07:13:26 -0800 (PST) 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 :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=CM17GdpVrRSdy3StpsDKhYdlvdKDcolrLwXhdXyK1rk=; b=O0Tnvs8DxyZZCTfKXI4+4a2yTdJ5A4DTOEC1hHAIhGt39JaKMg06CXI+obbl21YCtS fSCajE9ZMeE7Pi2zBAi2UbZ9g14kelxFmXXtRt28DmSQvW5iJwf1hVAxFjMMVis78FfF H0Es0J0wloBEjCleCCqXlK7NYhhfoezJ54+cb2ebQEFKIjMEMk4Vjjs2buQ3Y1aC8y7I 0zxlZp06TOTkOshyc+KDg7d6Nc2hBFyvIOvw55VLZS43D3N/WSWXVaLN5YyMd9GDXFg7 jbIsL4C4EIcXZSQGIcArvRichbRUtwGcdcdy7W6Zm+SuopTC4Laesw2uXZr4gbbS9fB2 0Y8A== 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:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=CM17GdpVrRSdy3StpsDKhYdlvdKDcolrLwXhdXyK1rk=; b=YoaTCI6rgvX5oY3yirklhQB7ok1/itAXhjTWEJsHp18Y0AB/hF3GDA5hcDxPEkzesZ 08IRPxn8rLiLwvQ8NFx2TsLGKbQlKP2IdG6LHjQGxBgaFS+G89UaGaKcrL1+PIJC0l+Z mLjom+ufB1IcZP2BoJ5dQ+dAQ0s9pZHJbgShyAbUbfGuTbWkanpyQerbx0w7asAg4EdE JWZmCZqMLLOilK8dLOPDoDGFChuC0zesgMYJpRF604thBoRN7ASisugeHZ9bgHlmm4QE ZKzFo3nnTCIW3BUAFuO2C0KMmXfdBrkyVhlekMzbolYSP1ZBO54Kph0iyRlL9T02dIDy ggFQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk8qfORUPGGt2aLsRl8hNyN5SPI/MIW+hZGVjv8kkDYq/wvwM5TWC0tRVISA49FEXpDXITZ X-Received: by 10.66.65.109 with SMTP id w13mr10767198pas.28.1419606806051; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 07:13:26 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.85.69 with SMTP id m63ls3279845qgd.93.gmail; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 07:13:25 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.42.229 with SMTP id c92mr6731qga.29.1419606805156; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 07:13:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: andy.prowl@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:15318 Archived-At: ------=_Part_684_947562529.1419606804786 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_685_2092182398.1419606804787" ------=_Part_685_2092182398.1419606804787 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Friday, December 26, 2014 12:05:46 PM UTC+1, dgutson wrote: > One of the nice things of interfaces is that you only need to look in a > single place: if you want to know what a class can do, just look to a > bounded (close) set of methods delimited by the interface, rather than > having to look to a bunch of functions spread along random header files, > which reminds me C. > So, if we will enjoy uniform call syntax, I would vote for the member > version so the nonmember will come for free > Well, you can put the declaration of the non-fundamental functions which are part of a class's logical interface in the header that comes with that class, and in the same namespace as the class. This is the gist of the Interface Principle (the article is old, but still valid). This way, you'd still have one single place to look at when you want to know what a class can do, but you won't make the class's interface larger than necessary. Notice, that it is generally not possible to declare all functions that work with a class as member functions of that class, so having free functions (or member functions of *other* classes, but that does not eliminate the problem of functionality being "spread along random header files") is unavoidable. Kind regards, Andy -- --- 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 email 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/. ------=_Part_685_2092182398.1419606804787 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Friday, December 26, 2014 12:05:46 PM UTC+1, dgutson wr= ote:
 

One of= the nice things of interfaces is that you only need to look in a single pl= ace: if you want to know what a class can do, just look to a bounded (close= ) set of methods delimited by the interface, rather than having to look to = a bunch of functions spread along random header files, which reminds me C.<= br> So, if we will enjoy uniform call syntax, I would vote for the member versi= on so the nonmember will come for free

Well, you can p= ut the declaration of the non-fundamental functions which are part of a cla= ss's logical interface in the header that comes with that class, and in the= same namespace as the class. This is the gist of the Interface Principle (the article= is old, but still valid). This way, you'd still have one single place to l= ook at when you want to know what a class can do, but you won't make the cl= ass's interface larger than necessary.

Notice, that it is generally = not possible to declare all functions that work with a class as member func= tions of that class, so having free functions (or member functions of ot= her classes, but that does not eliminate the problem of functionality b= eing "spread along random header files") is unavoidable.

Kind regard= s,

Andy

--

---
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_685_2092182398.1419606804787-- ------=_Part_684_947562529.1419606804786-- .