Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] (op)_and_test naming
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-24 14:30:11
On 01/24/18 16:09, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> My only ask is that the new names be concise, if possible.
> The concisest I can come up with is sub_and_check_if_zero; anything else
> either doesn't read correctly, or is still ambiguous.
Maybe sub_and_test_zero then?
So, do I understand correctly that, in your opinion, the current naming
is confusing and should be changed?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk