From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-29 21:31:56
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:31:40 -0800, Eric Niebler wrote
> > Daniel Frey <d.frey_at_[hidden]> 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.