Yeah there's a few issues, such as whether to support deques, but I
figured one thing at a time. Given lack of response, might be best to
discuss at next meeting.
Can't use swap in the name as mentioned - as no swaps occur.

Cheers for getting back to me.

On 4/09/2023 10:16 am, Patrice Roy wrote:
> In PXXX, I put « Move-With-Last-Swap / Reorderase » for the moment and
> we'll find a better name if needed (it's a bit early for that). I'd
> focus on the technical issues initially, and feel LEWG's mood for the
> name.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Le jeu. 24 août 2023 à 20:07, Matt Bentley via SG14
> <sg14_at_[hidden]> a écrit :
>
> Hi all-
>
> as per the last meeting there was some support for putting forward
> a proposal for what I call reorderase (plflib.org/reorderase.htm
> <http://plflib.org/reorderase.htm>) but is really just an
> iteration of the swap-and-pop idiom, optimized (no swap, just
> move) and extended to range-erase and std::erase_if/std::erase.
> See the page for more information.
>
> There was some discussion of this back in 2015 by Brent Freidman
> but he was focused on the erase_if equivalents - which're the
> worse-performing of the set.
>
> I have a few questions before putting a paper together, the first
> of which is bikeshedding. I'm pretty settled on the name
> 'move_pop', for reasons which will become clear, but I am open to
> suggestions. Please let me know what you think:
>
>
> Names which aren't appropriate:
>
> * I like portmanteau's but the standard doesn't, so I'm guessing
> 'reorderase' is out of the question; possibly unfair on
> non-english speakers.
> * Anything with 'swap' in it. Implies operations which do not
> occur, also implies allocation.
> * Anything with 'unstable' in it - in the case of the standard
> library the term 'unstable' is not defined or used, only the
> term 'stable' is defined. In addition the word has a bad
> connotation in terms of programs, and algorithms are assumed
> to be unstable by-default where 'stable' is not used in functions.
> * Anything long like 'unstable', 'disordered', 'unordered',
> 'reordering', etc; at least for the singular/range reorderase
> equivalents. They are expected to be commonly-used functions,
> so long is Bad. I don't mind a longer title on the
> erase_if/remove_if equivalent as this is expected to be
> less-frequently used.
> * Anything involving 'back' or 'front'. A deque would want to
> pop from the front if |location == begin()| or |first ==
> begin()| |(in reorderase(first, last))|, and we would want the
> name to be consistent between deques and
> vectors/inplace_vectors (if we want to support deques).
>
> Potential names:
>
> * move_pop/move_and_pop (the standard currently has about 1
> other function which uses _and_ but it seems an unnecessary
> elongation) - this is good enough, and short, and brings in
> the 'pop' association with being quick/O(1).
> * ...? Suggestions?
> * For an std::erase_if/std::erase equivalent, using the 'pop'
> thing won't work, as erase_if already does this (moves the
> stuff to the back, erases it). If we go with a
> remove_if-equivalent implementation instead of erase_if, pop
> also doesn't work because remove_if doesn't erase/pop
> anything. I'm leaning towards (assuming a remove_if equivalent
> member function instead of erase_if)
> 'unordered_remove_if'/'unordered_remove', or
> 'disordered_remove_if'/'disordered_remove'. I prefer the
> latter is it clearly implies that there /will be/ a disruption
> of order in the use of this function.
>
>
> M@
>
> _______________________________________________
> SG14 mailing list
> SG14_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg14
>