Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision
From: Henrik Sundberg (storangen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-29 14:15:25
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Joachim Faulhaber
> 2011/4/29 Ivan Le Lann <ivan.lelann_at_[hidden]>:
>> I like those names,
>> 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.
and the has_not in has_not_equal_to sounds lite the opposite to
has_equal_to (I was looking for has_not).
Couldn't the bitwise_ names in Boost be marked as deprecated and live
together with a new bit_ for a while?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk