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: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-30 10:09:26

2011/4/30 Gevorg Voskanyan <v_gevorg_at_[hidden]>:
> Howard Hinnant wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> [snip]
>
>> >> // 20.8.7, bitwise operations:
>> >> template <class T> struct bit_and;
>> >> template <class T> struct bit_or;
>> >> template <class T> struct bit_xor;
>> >>
>> >> 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  ?
>
> As a matter of fact, 'bitand' and 'bitor' have been alternative tokens for & and
> | since at least C++98. I.e. still no "bitwise" in the name.

I know that, but the alternative tokens seem to be somewhat special as
they seem to be designed to be extra short (as direct alternatives for
the short op-signs)...

... nevertheless, thank you all for the clarification of this point.

Since we can not expect, much less enforce, a change in the standard
to "bitwise_" prefix and consistency with the standard should of
course have #1 priority for naming consistency, the Most Unifying
Proposal for the operator name component as in

https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/Naming/Operators

remains as proposed before.

Best regards,
Joachim

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