2011/4/29 Ivan Le Lann <ivan.lelann@free.fr>:
----- "Joachim Faulhaber" <afojgo@googlemail.com> a écrit :
Hi Frédéric, list, (snip)
To save you some time, I have inserted my proposal as column D into the Wiki at https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/GuideLines/Naming/OperatorTraitNames
I like those names,
I tend to appreciate that ;) After all column D contains my proposal. But I want to stress here again that I don't like many of them and I share many of the critiques expressed by others in this seemingly never ending thread.
except "has_negate". I would have kept "has_unary_minus", in line with proposed "has_unary_plus".
I also wonder if "has_negate" could be mistaken for "!" by some people.
I can understand this concern for example. The point here is that I have a strong preference for the choice of names, which maximizes standard and cross library naming consistency. negate is used in the standard and in Boost.Proto for entities referring to unary operator - . So according to rules 1 and 2 on https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/Naming/Operators negate is the only choice for the naming component referring to the operator. Regards, Joachim -- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de