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

Subject: Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-20 13:46:56

On 8/20/2012 10:39 AM, Nicholas Howe wrote:
> 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.

For an early version of Proto, I used "posit" (v. Assume as a fact; put
forward as a basis of argument.) as the name for the unary plus operator
for many of the same reasons you cite above. There was a hew and a cry
during Proto's review, and I had to change it to unary_plus.

Just another data point.

-- 
Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com