RFC: Rename BitAnd, BitOr, and BitXor to And, Or, and Xor

[brendanzab]

This would make them more consistent with the other operator trait names.

[Thiez]

How will we refer to && and ||? Logical and and logical or?

[liigo]

I don't like this rename, because of && and ||
2014年2月16日 下午5:50于 "Brendan Zabarauskas" notifications@github.com写道：

This would make them more consistent with the other operator trait names.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/12315
.

[huonw]

In my mind they already are consistent: | does a bitwise-or, & does a bitwise-and, etc. (I guess people colloquially call them 'or' and 'and', but as @liigo says, it causes confusion with logical-or and logical-and.)

[brendanzab]

Short-circuit and/or? or-else/and-also?

[huonw]

Well... the accepted jargon is bitwise operators vs. logical operations.

[brendanzab]

Hm ok. Should we instead do:

• Shl -> BitShl
• Shr -> BitShr
• Not -> BitNot

Might make things more consistent.

[zkamsler]

Not does not appear to be exclusively bitwise or logical. It depends on what type it is used on.

Adding Bit to Shl and Shr is a bit redundant, in the sense that there is no circumstance in which it could be confused with a logical operation.