On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@google.com> wrote:
> On 8/8/12, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 2012 Lawrence Crowl <cr...@google.com> wrote:
>> > We should probably think about naming conventions for mutating
>> > operations, as I expect we will want them eventually.
>>
>> Right. In the end I would prefer explicit constructors.
>
> I don't think we're thinking about the same thing.
>
> I'm talking about member functions like mystring.append ("foo").
> The += operator is mutating as well.
>
> Constructors do not mutate, they create.
Ah. For simple objects like double_int I prefer to have either all ops mutating
or all ops non-mutating.
Richard.
> --
> Lawrence Crowl
