Wouldn't it be better if Clipper2 always used count() as API interface for the "size" or size() of course?

[aismann]

Wouldn't it be better if Clipper2 always used count() as API interface for the "size" or size() of course?
Clipper2 classes using count() or size().
I dont see a reason for this different API naming. Sorry.

[aismann]

I like count() more as size()..
All existing size() implemention should rename to count().
And for backwards compatible reason the size() has only count() call in it like:

<Clipper2Class>.size()
{
return count();
}

[AngusJohnson]

I like count() more as size().. All existing size() implemention should rename to count().

If the library was only written in C++, then I'd have no problem with your suggestion.
However the library is written in Delphi, C# and C++ and in both Delphi and C# Count is always used instead of size.
So for consistency with all translations I'll be sticking with Count (unless its needed in a structure that's C++ specific).

[aismann]

@AngusJohnson
Do you plan to make it consistency for all languages?

[rs0xFFFF]

I would say, "count" refers to an object count and "size" to a byte count.

[yoavmil]

As a C++ user I oppose changing the standant language naming. Each language should use its own naming convensions.

[aismann]

@yoavmil
Do you think size is correct?
I think no.