Wondering about aligning some naming choices more towards std

[ratmice]

This is just something I was wondering about, having used im on a number of projects,
Sometimes there is just minor differences of naming between im and the std::collections.

for instance in im difference in HashSet, and OrdSet is an alias for symmetric_difference, while in std
difference is equivalent to the im function relative_complement.

I'm not sure how I would go about aligning more closely in this case, probably deprecate, difference, remove it. then after a period of time introduce a feature to enable a difference alias for relative complement.

I figured it was at least worth considering, if only to gauge reaction, but definitely feel free to close if compat is considered more important.

[jneem]

Thanks for bringing this up! I think the scariest thing is silently unexpected behavior, so I'm not thrilled about having our difference be different from std's. Deprecating difference sounds like a good first step (and if I'm not mistaken it doesn't even require a semver bump, right?)

I'm less convinced about re-enabling difference with the std meaning though. I mean, not having a difference function to match std is a bit of a wart, but requiring a feature in order to get the new name is also a bit of a wart, so is it worth it?

[ratmice]

That is a good point and should be less worrysome than reintroducing it.

At the time I was writing that I was search/replacing types to test between std and imbl to get an idea of the performance profile of a particular usage of a data structure, so that why I was thinking it'd be nice to be able to reintroduce it.
as it would make switching between the implementations easier.

But I would be just as pleased with this search/replace not actually being a foot-gun, as if search/replace would just "work".

[ratmice]

FWIW, I'll have a go at a PR for this and do some documentation reading to see if I notice anything else.
I'll post the patch, but think it'd be good to wait a bit before merging it for either feedback or perhaps others know of more overlap.

[jneem]

At the time I was writing that I was search/replacing types to test between std and imbl to get an idea of the performance profile of a particular usage of a data structure, so that why I was thinking it'd be nice to be able to reintroduce it.
as it would make switching between the implementations easier.

Oh, that's definitely an interesting use-case that I hadn't considered. I guess macros are also a reason for having the same names.

[ratmice]

FWIW, I did read through the documentation and nothing else really jumped out at me.

[ratmice]

Think this can probably be closed now.