Re: [boost] review request: addition to type_traits library ofhas_operator_xxx

Subject: Re: [boost] review request: addition to type_traits library ofhas_operator_xxx
From: Frédéric Bron (frederic.bron_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-18 03:16:18

>> I really don't mind if it gets spelled with namespaces instead of
>> underscores, but a using declaration is not a motivation for it.
>
> OK. But I prefer namespaces rather than decorating names with some common
> 'prefix' to show commonality. I personally believe as an end-user that there
> is the tendency to pile too much directly into the boost namespace.

Using namespaces, it would become:
  namespace boost { namespace operators {
    has_equal_to
    has_not_equal_to
    has_greater
    has_greater_equal
    has_less
    has_less_equal
    has_plus
    has_minus
    ...
}}

There would be a small inconsistency because for example we have
boost::algorithm:: (singular) but boost::operators:: (plural) but we
clear cannot use boost::operator::.

For such a decision, that is if we go for has_operator_xxx or
operators::has_xxx, what is the practice to decide what we accept?
Obviously it would be difficult to have everybody satisfied with either method.
I do not want to switch to namespace if we are not sure to go for it.

Same question for has_new_operator vs has_operator_new vs operators::has_new

Frédéric