<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/6/24 Milan Straka <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fox@ucw.cz">fox@ucw.cz</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">> On 24 June 2010 11:14, Milan Straka <<a href="mailto:fox@ucw.cz">fox@ucw.cz</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > I need some opinion:<br>
> ><br>
> > - Do you think methods like insert/lookup/delete/etc should be strict in<br>
> > key/element?<br>
> ><br>
> > As Claus wrote, right now it is undocumented and inconsistent (both in<br>
> > the methods of one container and also in the same methods of different<br>
> > container).<br>
><br>
> Just as it is sometimes important to be able to do strict inserts, it<br>
> is important sometimes that we have maps that are lazy in the<br>
> elements. There are important use cases both ways.<br>
><br>
> So yes we should have some kind of consistent convention. We could do<br>
> worse than the naming convention where the strict versions use a<br>
> trailing prime ' character.<br>
<br>
</div>I thought we are talking only about keys/elements. I would leave the<br>
values untouched.<br>
<br>
Personally I vote for:<br>
- keys in Maps and elements in Sets are strict<br>
- vales in Maps are left untouched (lazy)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1 from me</div><div><br></div><div>Great work so far.</div><div><br></div><div>-Edward Kmett</div></div>