Re: [boost] [naming] standard: bitwise operations in the new standard (20.8.7)

Subject: Re: [boost] [naming] standard: bitwise operations in the new standard (20.8.7)
From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-29 09:48:13

On Apr 29, 2011, at 7:53 AM, Christopher Jefferson wrote:

> 
> On 29 Apr 2011, at 12:37, Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> 
>> Dear list,
>> 
>> this posting is addressed specifically to those people who are
>> involved in the standardisation process for c++. As far as I know
>> 
>> Beman, Howard, Dave, Doug, ...
>> 
>> On occasion of the Boost.TypeTraits extension we were discussing names
>> for operators and operator call traits. As an important aspect, naming
>> consistency with the standard and across boost libraries has been
>> discussed.
> 
> Unfortunately, you are a couple of months too late, the final version of the standard has been completed. You could submit a defect report, but I shouldn't think something would be renamed under a defect report, unless there was a good reason for doing so, and being compatible with boost probably isn't a good enough reason.
> 
> bit_and and friends have been in g++ since 2007, so it's really too late to be changing the name now.
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> Chris

Agreed.

Howard

> 
>> 
>> We have found that functors on bitwise operators
>> 
>> // 20.8.7, bitwise operations:
>> template <class T> struct bit_and;
>> template <class T> struct bit_or;
>> template <class T> struct bit_xor;
>> 
>> are new in the upcoming standard and are named using prefix
>> 
>> bit_
>> 
>> In contrast to that, within boost, entities referring to bitwise
>> operators are almost consistently named using prefix
>> 
>> bitwise_
>> 
>> This is done specifically in Boost.Proto but also Boost.MPI
>> (boost/mpi/operations.hpp).
>> 
>> bitwise_and, bitwise_or, bitwise_xor
>> 
>> are declared and used at 95 lines in Boost Libraries currently.
>> 
>> Since 20.8.7, bitwise operations are *new* in the standard and naming
>> consistency would be great for users, do you think there is a chance
>> that those 3 names can be changed to
>> 
>> bitwise_and, bitwise_or, bitwise_xor ?
>> 
>> If so, is there anything that can be done to help the process. I'd
>> volunteer to write a paper, if necessary.
>> 
>> This might be a tiny issue, but since operators are at the core of any
>> language, a consistent naming around them might be of great value on
>> the long run.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Joachim
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl]
>> http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost