On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:31:40 -0800, Eric Niebler wrote
Daniel Frey <d.frey@gmx.de> writes:
I don't like the name of the function, as std_min doesn't hint me about the ADL-nature of the call. Would adl_std_min be too much typing? Or propbably just adl_min, as it's quite common to use std::min if ADL doesn't find a better match. My $.02.
Looks to me as though boost::min_ is the best name for this thing.
I tried to engage people in a discussion of these issues before making 1000+ edit to correct this problem. Now, everybody want to change it. :-P
This would be a simple search/replace, so I don't mind. Can we all agree on boost::min_? I don't want to have to change it again.
No, I don't think it is worth changing again. min_ isn't better than std_min in my view. Put extra comments in the code / docs to explain it. Changing it again means all of us will have to re-integrate your new changes. It's working, don't mess with it, lets move on. Jeff ps: Thx for taking this on. I haven't personally had to deal with this nasty bit of windows macro hell, but I'm sure it would have got me sooner or later.