Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)

Subject: Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)
From: Nicholas Howe (nicholas.howe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-20 10:39:54

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Alexander Lamaison <awl03_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > on Thu Aug 09 2012, Robert Jones <robertgbjones-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Paul A. Bristow
> >> <pbristow_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> >>
> >>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:
> >>> boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Steven
> >>> > Watanabe
> >>> > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:52 PM
> >>> > To: boost_at_[hidden]
> >>> > Subject: Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)
> >>> >
> >>> > AMDG
> >>> >
> >>> > On 08/09/2012 02:27 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Should the unary plus be included for completeness?
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> > Sure.  What should it be called?
> >>>
> >>> plusable
> >>>
> >>> perhaps?
> >>>
> >>> I can't think of any better.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> unaryaddable maybe?
> >
> > I don't think unary plus can be considered an addition.
>
> Posatable (complement of negatable) ;)
>
>
I like affirm as a name for unary operator +, because it's an antonym of
negate, it can be made into other parts of speech similarly to negate, and
because I think it conveys the general redundancy of using unary operator
+.  If you think of unary operator + as the affirmation operator, then you
can use affirmable here.

Nick