Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-28 06:04:51
Hi Frédéric, list,
I was off for some days over Easter and am now trying to catch up with
the discussion that I have reignited a week ago. Thank you for your
efforts to summarize and propose practical ways to a final solution.
2011/4/21 Frédéric Bron <frederic.bron_at_[hidden]>:
> It would be a shame if we all get angry from this discussion. I can
> propose the following to stop arguing:
Naming discussions can get pretty nasty and tedious as some have
expressed. On the other hand I think that this is also a discussion
about naming consistency with a wider perspective (boost < generic
libraries < language standard c++ < programming languages < ...).
Since an operator sign like '+' is extremely universal and ubiquitous
even beyond programming languages, its naming has a somewhat
This being said, I think that the discussions about consistency
aspects and the evolution of standards is worth the effort. If we were
able to agree on some rules and rationals here, the discussion result
could be a contribution for similar naming problems in the future.
> 1. each member of boost or boost-user can contribute (deadline April
> 29th 11:59pm CET) by giving his/her list of best names (just one list
> per member; only FULL lists are valid in the same order as described
> here: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/GuideLines/Naming/OperatorTraitNames).
> 2. we put it to a one week ballot so that each member of boost or
> boost-user can say which of all proposals he/she prefers (no vote
> before all contributions are received, deadline May 6th 11:59pm CET)
> 3. my vote counts for 2 and we choose the proposal that gets the highest score.
> Does that sounds right?
> During this time, I can continue improving the library according to
> the other comments from the review which are more consensual.
Although I appreciate your efforts for a practical solution, I'd
prefer the evolution of a consensus about rules and rationals around
naming and naming consistency as a basis on which the names are
chosen. After scanning across the postings of the last week, I have
the impression, that there is at least some consensus about the value
of cross library consistency considerations.
-- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk