Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-28 07:59:19

2011/3/28 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>:
> Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>> 2011/3/27 Frédéric Bron <frederic.bron_at_[hidden]>:
>> >>  - The main recurring suggestions found was the choice of
>> >>    name for the operator traits with respect to the
>> >>    standard naming, naming in proto and other boost
>> >>    libraries.
>> >>  * Frederic and a few other seems to favor the proto naming
>> >>    scheme (more or less the negate issue and the pre/post
>> >>    operator)
>> >>  * the question of a common prefix is still open
>> >
>> > What about is_callable_plus, is_callable_plus_assign, ...
>> > i.e. is_callable_xxxx where xxxx the same as in Boost.Proto?
>> >
>> > I know that is_xxxx_callable reads better but I like to have
>> > a common prefix longer than is_.
>>
>> Is there any problem related to using a short prefix like
>> "is_"?
>
> I like short prefixes when they are meaningful, but is_add/is_addition/is_plus
> means nothing.

sigh ... I assume this is clear for everyone, particularly as
Frédéric's proposal has an additional suffix _callable in combination
here.

I am particularly interested if there is a rational against a short
prefix *in general* as Frédéric's statement

>>> ... but I like to have a common prefix longer than is_.

seem to imply such a general rule. Frédéric, are you generally prefer
prefix name extensions? Why not consider suffixes, if they read
better, e.g.

xxxx_is_callable or
xxxx_callable or   (shorter and may implicitly be correct for "is_" and "are_")
xxxx_applicable

Joachim

-- 
Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl]
http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de