Re: [boost] [proto] new version, breaking changes

From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-22 02:35:27

Maurizio Vitale wrote:
> Found some more:
>     bitwise_{and,or,xor} for boost::mpl bit{and,or,xor}_
> 
> And then you have these, although here is a tougher call:
>     logical_{and,or,not} for boost::mpl::{and,or,not}_
> The problem here is that proto already has and_, or_ and not_ (although not in the tag namespace) and
> it might be confusing to have the same name denoting different things.
> (although personally I find having the same name for different things in different namespaces less
> confusing than having different names for the same thing across proto/mpl).

Ah, I finally remember my rationale for choosing the names logical_and, 
logical_or and logical_not for representing the operators &&, || and !. 
Those are the std names of the function objects in <functional> for 
those operators. And the names bitwise_and, bitwise_or, etc., are chosen 
by extension. Anyway, that was my reason, and it still seems like a good 
one. That doesn't mean I can't be convinced to change it, though.

> Maybe here it would be better if boost::mpl offered the proto names as well (while preserving the existing ones
> for backward compatibility).

Eh. Naming is such a contentious issue. I'm not sure I want to wage that 
battle.

-- 
Eric Niebler
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com