Re: [boost] Re: comments on dlw_oprs.zip

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-12 07:24:46

From: "Daryle Walker" <darylew_at_[hidden]>
> on 9/9/00 4:49 PM, David Abrahams at abrahams_at_[hidden] wrote:
>
> > Overall, it looks good. These incremental improvements should help to
> > complete the picture.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Problems:
> >
> > IMO, the names you've chosen for null_default_quantifiable,
> > zero_default_quantifiable, and idempotent are too obscure.
>
> Do you have better names?

Unfortunately, no. I don't mind idempotent too much; that's technically the
correct name and it's reasonably short. As for the others... well as a
matter of fact I consider implicit conversions hazardous enough that maybe
we shouldn't enshrine them in that way. Maybe whether or not you can find a
good name for something is a measure of the quality of the idea (?)

I'm thinking that unless I hear strong arguments in favor of the
_default_quantifiable templates, we should leave them out.

-Dave