Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-23 10:54:15
2011/5/12 Gottlob Frege <gottlobfrege_at_[hidden]>:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Joachim Faulhaber
> <afojgo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> (1) Tony: The choice is taken by spokenness and common usage.
>> (2) Joachim: The choice is taken by the standard and prevailing
>> (boost) libraries.
> To be clear, I tend to agree that the standard comes first (except
> that nasty 'negate' problem),
Why is it nasty?
Standard *and* boost libraries agree on 'negate' -- perfect!
nobody desires 'unary_multiplies' in order to be consistent with
Everybody is happy with 'dereference' that follows boost::proto in this case.
Nobody demands a 'binary_plus' in order to be consistent with
All those considerations may come along the way and the inventor may
be very proud of some of those rationals. But they can be pretty
"local" and "personal" maybe "egoic" sometimes.
If this is the case, we can just choose the Most Unifying Names, for
the clear goal to converge to standard and inter library consistency.
-- 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