On Saturday, 2 November 2013 at 22:45:13 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> I spent considerable amount of time on those names. Like you, I am not happy with Inverse. :)
>
> I wanted to say struct Negate and function negate(). But ! is the negation operator.
>
> I like opposite better but the Wikipedia article calls it "additive inverse" so inverse is still acceptable, I guess? :)
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C++

Well, if you don't want to change it now that the chapter has been released, don't worry -- it's not wrong per se, just somewhat unintuitive to my native English ear.

I think that Negative and negative() (not Negation) would be fine.  Bear in mind that ! is the _logical_ negation operator; without the qualifier, the word doesn't have the same meaning.  "The negative of x" is just -x.

The trouble with inverse (for me) is that its colloquial meaning is the multiplicative inverse, while in a strict mathematical sense it is too general -- you can have an inverse of _any_ function, so the term always needs to be qualified as the "inverse of ..." (whether of addition, multiplication, some other choice of function).  But this may be my fussing too much. ;-)

On Sunday, 3 November 2013 at 21:21:04 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 November 2013 at 22:45:13 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> I spent considerable amount of time on those names. Like you, I am not happy with Inverse. :)
>>

I'm not a native English speaker, but FWIW I would have chosen:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/numeric_complement

On Sunday, 3 November 2013 at 22:42:37 UTC, Tove wrote:
> I'm not a native English speaker, but FWIW I would have chosen:
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/numeric_complement

I knew there was another term out there somewhere :-)

On 11/03/2013 03:19 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 November 2013 at 22:42:37 UTC, Tove wrote:
>> I'm not a native English speaker, but FWIW I would have chosen:
>>
>> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/numeric_complement
>
> I knew there was another term out there somewhere :-)

Thanks all, I've settled with the pedantically incorrect Negative and negative() but I added a note saying that it is more accurate to say "numeric complement":

  http://code.google.com/p/ddili/source/detail?r=649

Tove, I added you just as Tove in the acknowledgments section. Please e-mail me your last name at acehreli@yahoo.cm if you want me to add it.

Thank you,
Ali

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Ali Çehreli <acehreli@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks all, I've settled with the pedantically incorrect Negative and negative() but I added a note saying that it is more accurate to say "numeric complement":
>

:) That is the name I was secretly voting for.

Any chance of you providing a limited edition printed version? Perhaps with the authors name missing from the cover? :D

-Rory

On 11/03/2013 11:06 PM, Rory McGuire wrote:

> Any chance of you providing a limited edition printed version?
> Perhaps with the authors name missing from the cover? :D

Ha ha! :) Maybe the name should appear randomly on the web site. Seriously, I am thinking about a printed version, likely self-published, but not before another couple of months.

Ali

On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 04:41:44 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 11/03/2013 03:19 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> On Sunday, 3 November 2013 at 22:42:37 UTC, Tove wrote:
>>> I'm not a native English speaker, but FWIW I would have chosen:
>>>
>>> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/numeric_complement
>>
>> I knew there was another term out there somewhere :-)
>
> Thanks all, I've settled with the pedantically incorrect Negative and negative() but I added a note saying that it is more accurate to say "numeric complement":
>
>   http://code.google.com/p/ddili/source/detail?r=649
>
> Tove, I added you just as Tove in the acknowledgments section. Please e-mail me your last name at acehreli@yahoo.cm if you want me to add it.
>
> Thank you,
> Ali

Not directly related to this, but do you have the book on GitHub
or some such site where we can submit change requests to the
text?  I've seen some small grammar errors that I could likely
correct, but having to post to the mailing list (or even email
you) seems like more work for both of us.

Cheers,

Craig

On 4 Nov 2013 19:45, "Ali Çehreli" <acehreli@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/03/2013 11:06 PM, Rory McGuire wrote:
>
> > Any chance of you providing a limited edition printed version? Perhaps with the authors name missing from the cover? :D
>
> Ha ha! :) Maybe the name should appear randomly on the web site.
Seriously, I am thinking about a printed version, likely self-published, but not before another couple of months.
>
> Ali
>
I look forward to it. I'm thinking a book with author missing on front cover and picture done by relative in lower right corner :D.

On 11/04/2013 09:45 AM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:

> do you have the book on GitHub or some such site where we can
> submit change requests to the text?

This would be the best place:

  http://code.google.com/p/ddili/issues/list

Unfortunately it is svn, not a distributed version control system. :-/ Perhaps you can put the diff in the issue tracker and I apply.

> I've seen some small grammar errors

Thank you,
Ali

On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 18:22:03 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 11/04/2013 09:45 AM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
>
> > do you have the book on GitHub or some such site where we can
> > submit change requests to the text?
>
> This would be the best place:
>
>   http://code.google.com/p/ddili/issues/list
>
> Unfortunately it is svn, not a distributed version control system. :-/ Perhaps you can put the diff in the issue tracker and I apply.
>
> > I've seen some small grammar errors
>
> Thank you,
> Ali


I made a copy of your repo in git if your interested.  Preserved all of the history.
https://github.com/mcginleyr1/ddili-read-only