Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
Eric Niebler <eric <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
If you want to change both, a possibility would when (for if_) and unless (for not_). Interesting. All, any, when, and unless are not unreasonable. I know you retracted this suggestion in another message, but I want you to bring it up again when proto is under review. Naming is super-important, and I want more feedback on this issue. I'll remind you when the time comes.
Another possibility is to use separate namespaces proto::operators::or_ proto::control::or_
I thought about that, and it's not unreasonable, either. It might cause less confusion. However, the different or_'s will often be used together, making qualification a requirement. Compare the following (assumes using namespace proto;): struct MyGrammar : control::or_< operators::or_<_,_> , operators::bitor_<_,_> > {}; to struct MyGrammar : or_< logical_or<_,_> , bitwise_or<_,_> > {}; IMO, eliminating the operators:: namespace would be better. This isn't half bad: struct MyGrammar : control::or_< or_<_,_> , bitor_<_,_> > {}; But control::or_ is likely to be more common than or_ (the operator), so the Huffman coding is lousy. Gah, naming is hard! Opinions? Maurizio? Joel? Hartmut? -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com