2011/4/29 Joachim Faulhaber <afojgo@googlemail.com>:
2011/4/29 Gottlob Frege <gottlobfrege@gmail.com>:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Joseph Wu <josephclwu@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 04/28/2011 07:57 PM, Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
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
Cheers, Joachim
+1 for column D
Cheers,
Joseph
I think (in order of strength of my opinion) - naming is very important - plus-equal (et al) is better than any of the other options
interesting ... ... could you give us a deeper insight in the superiority of this particular name?
Hi Tony, I'm still wondering about your preference for "plus_equal". My own considerations here are these: I remember a lecture by my professor in compiler construction two decades ago, who raged against the use of operator = in c. I'd be stupid to assign the assignment semantics to an operator = that is used in maths with a semantics of "is equal to" for centuries. He preferred to use := for assignment and = for equality. I agreed with him then and I still agree today. Alas ranting and raving of professors didn't influence c: Operator = is associated to assignment and operator == is associated to equality. And because we were drilled differently in maths, one of the most frequent error amongst c-novices was buried in code like if(x=y).. that led to seemingly bizarre behavior, both on the program's and on the programmer's part. Once attached to the = sign, the assignment semantics is used consistently in c and later c++ x += y for x = x + y assign after plus. In contrast to x +:= y for x := x + y in the family of algol languages. Similar for other operations o x o= y for x = x o y This perfectly justifies plus_assign for += if + is named plus and = is named assign at least I think so ... Cheers, Joachim -- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de