Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-30 13:29:18

2011/3/30 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>:
> Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>> 2011/3/30 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>:
>> > Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>>
>> >> Standard and boost (proto, accumulator, phoenix, ...,
>> >> boost::operator: "negatable") agree on "negate". Why
>> >> celebrate diversity here?
>> >
>> > I agree with Frédéric.  Consistency with "unary_plus" is beneficial.
>>
>> Where exactly is the benefit of creating a deviation from a naming
>> that is already consistent across the standard and boost libraries?
>
> Could you have expressed that question any more negatively?  Why are you trying to be obtuse?

Don't take it too personal. Generally I like your fine sense for
precise and nuanced naming. In this case I have a strong opinion that
leads me to a different conclusion.

We may agree that we disagree here ;)

Cheers,
Joachim