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

Subject: Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)
From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-20 13:56:14

On 08/20/12 12:46, Eric Niebler wrote:
> 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.
> 

I like unary_plus because it's so simple and immediately conveys
what it means.  One may object by saying plus is a binary operation,
and prefixing it with unary is a contradiction, but then so is
+1.  But then that would suggest negatable be renamed to unary_minus.

-regards,
Larry