Hi Frédéric, list, I was off for some days over Easter and am now trying to catch up with the discussion that I have reignited a week ago. Thank you for your efforts to summarize and propose practical ways to a final solution. 2011/4/21 Frédéric Bron <frederic.bron@m4x.org>:
It would be a shame if we all get angry from this discussion. I can propose the following to stop arguing:
Naming discussions can get pretty nasty and tedious as some have expressed. On the other hand I think that this is also a discussion about naming consistency with a wider perspective (boost < generic libraries < language standard c++ < programming languages < ...). Since an operator sign like '+' is extremely universal and ubiquitous even beyond programming languages, its naming has a somewhat fundamental character. This being said, I think that the discussions about consistency aspects and the evolution of standards is worth the effort. If we were able to agree on some rules and rationals here, the discussion result could be a contribution for similar naming problems in the future.
1. each member of boost or boost-user can contribute (deadline April 29th 11:59pm CET) by giving his/her list of best names (just one list per member; only FULL lists are valid in the same order as described here: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/GuideLines/Naming/OperatorTraitNames).
2. we put it to a one week ballot so that each member of boost or boost-user can say which of all proposals he/she prefers (no vote before all contributions are received, deadline May 6th 11:59pm CET)
3. my vote counts for 2 and we choose the proposal that gets the highest score.
Does that sounds right? During this time, I can continue improving the library according to the other comments from the review which are more consensual.
Although I appreciate your efforts for a practical solution, I'd prefer the evolution of a consensus about rules and rationals around naming and naming consistency as a basis on which the names are chosen. After scanning across the postings of the last week, I have the impression, that there is at least some consensus about the value of cross library consistency considerations. Best regards, Joachim -- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de