Re: GCC 4.0 Ada.Containers Cursor danger.

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

MMM wrote:
> "Matthew Heaney" <mheaney@on2.com> wrote in message

>>>>An iterator (either passive or active) simply enumerates elements in
>>>>their order as specified by the type of container they're in (either

Note "enumerates", 3rd person sing. You need the operations of
the type to express iteration. However, you don't need the smae operations
of a Cursor if you just want a reference to some element. Imagine
you just want the reference, and no iteration. Is it natural then to have
the name imply iteration?

>>>Exactly! Note also that the natural name for this is "iterator" not
>>>"cursor".

Since I don't speak English, I can't decide whether an English word is
a natural name. But since I don't speak English, I feel qualified (socially)
to mention that some names were chosen by programmers whose native language
isn't English either. This includes names choses by Stepanov et al., like
"push_back".  For example the phrasal verb "to push [sth] back" has meanings
in spoken English. Its use in STL though is, uhm, novel, right? The phrasal verb
of spoken English seems to contradict the STL meaning of push_back...
(There is now a different word to be used as the name of the concept in AI 302.)

Declaring "novel" uses of English words as natural by default
(because they have become widespread) gives a new meaning to "natural"
IMHO... Natural is what some majority of non-native speakers uses ;-)

>>You say "chien", I say "dog".  It's the same.
>>
> 
> Sure it is the same. So why to change? Just to be different?

Please, be different when the difference marks the proper choice of a word.
It helps understanding. Notice the many fights over passive versus
active iteration. As far as I can tell A.18 reduces the likelyhood of this
discussion, as a side effect of using different names.