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 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.