On 8/20/2012 10:39 AM, Nicholas Howe wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Alexander Lamaison <awl03@doc.ic.ac.uk>wrote:
Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> writes:
on Thu Aug 09 2012, Robert Jones <robertgbjones-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com>wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Steven Watanabe Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:52 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)
AMDG
On 08/09/2012 02:27 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote: > > Should the unary plus be included for completeness? >
Sure. What should it be called?
plusable
perhaps?
I can't think of any better.
unaryaddable maybe?
I don't think unary plus can be considered an addition.
Posatable (complement of negatable) ;)
I like affirm as a name for unary operator +, because it's an antonym of negate, it can be made into other parts of speech similarly to negate, and because I think it conveys the general redundancy of using unary operator +. If you think of unary operator + as the affirmation operator, then you can use affirmable here.
For an early version of Proto, I used "posit" (v. Assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument.) as the name for the unary plus operator for many of the same reasons you cite above. There was a hew and a cry during Proto's review, and I had to change it to unary_plus. Just another data point. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com