From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-23 14:46:54
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> So, there was a really interesting and hot discussion about namings.
>> Many opinions were expressed and I'd like to make some roundup.
>
> I still think that the question "should X be included at all" is slightly
> more fundamental than "should X be named rearm, protect, or on". But this
> may be just me.
It's not _just_ you. I definitely agree. Why hasn't Peter's question
been addressed?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com