Re: [boost] lhs/rhs ([Review] Type Traits Extension ending tomorrow)

Subject: Re: [boost] lhs/rhs ([Review] Type Traits Extension ending tomorrow)
From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-22 11:16:28

Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Max Sobolev wrote:
>> On 21.03.2011 21:06, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>> it's a mistake to break with a well-established convention
>>> that works just on principle.  The chance that your
>>> alternative will work better in practice is extremely low.
>> I think that preference in /*hs/ names is some sort of (old)
>> harmful habit, we must go away from this naming style. 50
>> years ago GOTO statement also were considered as excellent
>> programming instrument. (progress isn't stayed)
> 
> There is nothing remotely harmful in "lhs" or "rhs."
> 
>> Even if my naming convention isn't sufficient, this is not
>> means that yours is good enough :) to use it (In general, we
>> must formulate a new naming convention for binary operator
>> arguments.)
> 
> No, we mustn't.  You may prefer to see it happen, but there's no "must" here.
> 
> This may well be a language barrier, but I find "left hand side" and "right hand side" to be precisely the right names for the expressions surrounding a binary operator and "lhs" and "rhs" to be perfectly recognizable and readable abbreviations for those names.

+1

IIRC, these terms were well defined and used in basic linear algebra and 
numerical methods college courses.

Jeff