Re: [boost] Re: dlw_oprs: idempotent

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-26 05:26:52

But "identifiability" already has a well-established meaning, and it's a
different one. Sorry, I don't think I can accept "identifiable".
-Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daryle Walker" <darylew_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:30 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: dlw_oprs: idempotent

> on 4/24/01 8:08 PM, David Abrahams at abrahams_at_[hidden] wrote:
>
> > I still think idempotent is the wrong name. It describes a property of
the
> > operation it defines, rather than the concept (little 'c') completed by
the
> > operator template.
> >
> > "unary_plusable" is ugly but accurate and consistent with the documented
> > naming strategy.
>
> The unary + returns the value of its argument.  It could be considered an
> identity.  So I gave it the new name "identifiable" in the newest version
> (24).  I think it's closer to the 'concept' of the operator.  (It's
tighter;
> the identity function is always idempotent, but other functions can be
> idempotent too.)
>
> --
> Daryle Walker
> Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
> darylew AT mac DOT com
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to: <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>