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

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-29 13:59:20

2011/4/29 Ivan Le Lann <ivan.lelann_at_[hidden]>:
>
> ----- "Joachim Faulhaber" <afojgo_at_[hidden]> a écrit :
>
>> Hi Frédéric, list,
> (snip)
>>
>> To save you some time, I have inserted my proposal as column D into
>> the Wiki at
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/GuideLines/Naming/OperatorTraitNames
>>
>
> I like those names,

I tend to appreciate that ;) After all column D contains my proposal.
But I want to stress here again that I don't like many of them and I
share many of the critiques expressed by others in this seemingly
never ending thread.

> except "has_negate".
> I would have kept "has_unary_minus", in line with proposed "has_unary_plus".
>
> I also wonder if "has_negate" could be mistaken for "!" by some people.

I can understand this concern for example.

The point here is that I have a strong preference for the choice of
names, which maximizes standard and cross library naming consistency.
negate is used in the standard and in Boost.Proto for entities
referring to unary operator - . So according to rules 1 and 2 on
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/Naming/Operators
negate is the only choice for the naming component referring to the operator.

Regards,
Joachim

-- 
Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl]
http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de