←back to thread

Don’t blindly prefer emplace_back to push_back

(quuxplusone.github.io)
178 points todsacerdoti | 3 comments | 04 Mar 21 08:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.815s | source
Show context
user-the-name ◴[04 Mar 21 09:16 UTC] No.26340320[source]▶
"emplace_back"? People actually looked at this and went "Yes, this is a good function name. I understand this perfectly."?
replies(5): >>26340335 #>>26340345 #>>26340374 #>>26340547 #>>26343435 #
1. cannam ◴[04 Mar 21 09:53 UTC] No.26340547[source]▶
I quite like the name, not least because it accurately gives the impression of "something you will probably misunderstand".
replies(1): >>26341205 #
2. sillysaurusx ◴[04 Mar 21 11:41 UTC] No.26341205[source]▶
This had me burst out laughing. Thanks for that perspective. I guess that's one way to solve the naming problem: just make all your names super obscure as a warning to any would-be students of the dark arts.
replies(1): >>26341638 #
3. kevincox ◴[04 Mar 21 12:46 UTC] No.26341638[source]▶
My personal rules of naming, in order of importance are:

1. Be unique.

2. Don't be misleading.

3. Be leading.

So in this case you are nailing 2 but missing out on three which I would consider a "pretty good" name. Sure, it would be nice if it was a bit more obvious (maybe construct_in_place_back?) but at least it doesn't sound like it does something else so people know to look it up.