29 Apr
2011
29 Apr
'11
6:15 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Joachim Faulhaber <afojgo@googlemail.com> wrote:
2011/4/29 Ivan Le Lann <ivan.lelann@free.fr>:
I like those names, 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.
and the has_not in has_not_equal_to sounds lite the opposite to has_equal_to (I was looking for has_not). Couldn't the bitwise_ names in Boost be marked as deprecated and live together with a new bit_ for a while? /$