(quuxplusone.github.io)

178 points todsacerdoti | 4 comments | 04 Mar 21 08:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.01s | source

Show context

"emplace_back"? People actually looked at this and went "Yes, this is a good function name. I understand this perfectly."?

1. oddeyed ◴[04 Mar 21 09:19 UTC] No.26340335[source]▶

If you realise how it relates to "placement new" then it does kinda make sense. But yeah, not exactly beginner friendly!

replies(1): >>26340397 #

2. xKingfisher ◴[04 Mar 21 09:29 UTC] No.26340397[source]▶

Something like construct_back would've maybe been a little clearer. I imagine that would have it's own issues as well though.

replies(1): >>26340627 #

3. IshKebab ◴[04 Mar 21 10:02 UTC] No.26340627[source]▶

Or just `place_back`! Why do they have to be so whimsical?

replies(1): >>26340702 #

4. xKingfisher ◴[04 Mar 21 10:16 UTC] No.26340702{3}[source]▶

Maybe they're fans of why's guide to Ruby :)

Though place_back still has the connotation of 'take this thing and put it over there' that emplace_back is actually the opposite of.

Naming things really is hard.

Don’t blindly prefer emplace_back to push_back