Re: [boost] [atomic] (op)_and_test naming

Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] (op)_and_test naming
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-25 14:51:16

Andrey Semashev wrote:

> It seems like the term "test" indeed implies "check if something is not 
> zero".

It doesn't. Testing a _bit_ does test whether the bit is 1. Testing a 
condition does not imply that the condition "is not zero" is preferred over 
everything else. The x86 `test` instruction for example sets all condition 
codes, and it's up to the following conditional branch (jz, jnz, js, jns) to 
determine which one is being tested. (Ironically in the `jz` case it still 
tests whether a bit is 1 - the `zf` bit.)

But in any event, you can't settle an empirical question by reasoning. It's 
either confusing (to the actual audience) or it isn't, and if it is, 
elaborate rationalizations about why it shouldn't be do not change the 
outcome. You could just avoid that whole debate by making the name less 
ambiguous.