On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Hmm, isn't that a bit extreme? I mean that does not hold for simple
types that int
or double, etc.
-- Gaby
