Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] (op)_and_test naming
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-25 23:03:32
Rob Stewart wrote:
> Consistency within this domain should be sufficient.
Consistency and intuition are in conflict here. These function are presently
specified the way they are specified for a reason - this is what makes more
sense in the context in which they are typically used. You can use
consistency to justify a choice, but you can't magically make people not be
confused by the choice.
This is similar to the bool conversion of std::error_code, which is also
perfectly consistent and still manages to return the opposite of what a
certain fraction of the audience intuitively expects.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk