2011/3/30 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com>:
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
2011/3/29 Frédéric Bron <frederic.bron@m4x.org>:
I have updated this page for this (last column of the table): https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/Naming/Operators This is my current proposal which is very close to Boost.Proto apart for pre/_inc/dec->pre/post_increment/decrement and negate->unary_minus (to keep symmetry with unary_plus).
Standard and boost (proto, accumulator, phoenix, ..., boost::operator: "negatable") agree on "negate". Why celebrate diversity here?
I agree with Frédéric. Consistency with "unary_plus" is beneficial.
Where exactly is the benefit of creating a deviation from a naming that is already consistent across the standard and boost libraries?
It would be possible to include both,
For me uniformity is the major value here: Simplicity, uniqueness across libraries, ease of use for users. In contrast: Diversity? multiplicity? What value is added? Every developer on earth who is deeply disturbed by a perceived violation of symmetry is free to write her own functor template. In my own library I renamed some functions after Barend told me that there are different identifiers for them in geometry standards, although I liked my function names better. I love name convergence. It allows us to perceive higher level patterns and fosters abstraction. Sometimes one has to let go from ones personal views, likes and dislikes to achieve this. BTW, something like naming convergence taking place across different software libraries on a global level without hierarchies and application of force is a little miracle in itself. Cheers, Joachim -- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de