Re: [boost] proto::tag naming convention

From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-27 15:18:54

On 04/27/2007 01:17 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> Maurizio Vitale wrote:
> 
>>What is the rationale for not having proto::tags match the corresponding 
>>mpl metafunctions?
>>
>>For instance mpl has plus and proto has add (but unary_plus).
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. You're right, that's awful. I'll fix these.
> 
Well, as long as you're aiming for consistency, why not
do the following renames:

   proto::_       -> proto::true_

   proto::not_<_> -> proto::false_

?