2011/3/30 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com>:
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
2011/3/30 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com>:
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
Standard and boost (proto, accumulator, phoenix, ..., boost::operator: "negatable") agree on "negate". Why celebrate diversity here?
I agree with Frédéric. Consistency with "unary_plus" is beneficial.
Where exactly is the benefit of creating a deviation from a naming that is already consistent across the standard and boost libraries?
Could you have expressed that question any more negatively? Why are you trying to be obtuse?
Don't take it too personal. Generally I like your fine sense for precise and nuanced naming. In this case I have a strong opinion that leads me to a different conclusion. We may agree that we disagree here ;) Cheers, Joachim